[PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Thomas Hellström]

When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts the
number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and also
keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That pointer
is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking purposes,
but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays in
memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed and
there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the lockdep_map
itself has been released.

In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user unlocks
and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and that
mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.

Note that this is only problem when lockdep is enabled and affects only
dereferences of struct lockdep_map.

Adjust to this by adding a fake lockdep_map to the acquired context and
make sure it is the first acquired lockdep map of the associated
ww_mutex class. Then hold it for the duration of the WW/WD transaction.

This has the side effect that trying to lock a ww mutex *without* a
ww_acquire_context but where a such context has been acquire, we'd see
a lockdep splat. The test-ww_mutex.c selftest attempts to do that, so
modify that particular test to not acquire a ww_acquire_context if it
is not going to be used.

v2:
- Lower the number of locks in the test-ww_mutex
  stress(STRESS_ALL) test to accommodate the dummy lock
  introduced in this patch without overflowing lockdep held lock
  references.

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten@lankhorst.se>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
---
 include/linux/ww_mutex.h       | 14 ++++++++++++++
 kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c |  8 +++++---
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
index bb763085479a..a401a2f31a77 100644
--- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
@@ -65,6 +65,16 @@ struct ww_acquire_ctx {
 #endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
 	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
+	/**
+	 * @first_lock_dep_map: fake lockdep_map for first locked ww_mutex.
+	 *
+	 * lockdep requires the lockdep_map for the first locked ww_mutex
+	 * in a ww transaction to remain in memory until all ww_mutexes of
+	 * the transaction have been unlocked. Ensure this by keeping a
+	 * fake locked ww_mutex lockdep map between ww_acquire_init() and
+	 * ww_acquire_fini().
+	 */
+	struct lockdep_map first_lock_dep_map;
 #endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
 	unsigned int deadlock_inject_interval;
@@ -146,7 +156,10 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
 	debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
 	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
 			 &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
+	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class->mutex_name,
+			 &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
 	mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
+	mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
 #endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
 	ctx->deadlock_inject_interval = 1;
@@ -185,6 +198,7 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_done(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
 static inline void ww_acquire_fini(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+	mutex_release(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
 	mutex_release(&ctx->dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
 #endif
 #ifdef DEBUG_WW_MUTEXES
diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
index 10a5736a21c2..5d58b2c0ef98 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
@@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
 	int ret;
 
 	ww_mutex_init(&mtx.mutex, &ww_class);
-	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
+	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
+		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
 
 	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&mtx.work, test_mutex_work);
 	init_completion(&mtx.ready);
@@ -90,7 +91,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
 		ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mtx.done, TIMEOUT);
 	}
 	ww_mutex_unlock(&mtx.mutex);
-	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
+	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
+		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
 
 	if (ret) {
 		pr_err("%s(flags=%x): mutual exclusion failure\n",
@@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
+	ret = stress(2046, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-- 
2.46.0

Re: [PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts the
> number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and also
> keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That pointer
> is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking purposes,
> but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays in
> memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed and
> there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the lockdep_map
> itself has been released.
> 
> In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user unlocks
> and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and that
> mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
> such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.
> 
> Note that this is only problem when lockdep is enabled and affects only
> dereferences of struct lockdep_map.
> 
> Adjust to this by adding a fake lockdep_map to the acquired context and
> make sure it is the first acquired lockdep map of the associated
> ww_mutex class. Then hold it for the duration of the WW/WD transaction.
> 
> This has the side effect that trying to lock a ww mutex *without* a
> ww_acquire_context but where a such context has been acquire, we'd see
> a lockdep splat. The test-ww_mutex.c selftest attempts to do that, so
> modify that particular test to not acquire a ww_acquire_context if it
> is not going to be used.
> 
> v2:
> - Lower the number of locks in the test-ww_mutex
>   stress(STRESS_ALL) test to accommodate the dummy lock
>   introduced in this patch without overflowing lockdep held lock
>   references.

Thanks, I rebased tip/locking/core, which should now have this patch.

[tip: locking/core] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[tip-bot2 for Thomas Hellström]

The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     823a566221a5639f6c69424897218e5d6431a970
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/823a566221a5639f6c69424897218e5d6431a970
Author:        Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
AuthorDate:    Wed, 09 Oct 2024 11:20:31 +02:00
Committer:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CommitterDate: Wed, 09 Oct 2024 15:08:25 +02:00

locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts the
number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and also
keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That pointer
is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking purposes,
but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays in
memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed and
there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the lockdep_map
itself has been released.

In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user unlocks
and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and that
mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.

Note that this is only problem when lockdep is enabled and affects only
dereferences of struct lockdep_map.

Adjust to this by adding a fake lockdep_map to the acquired context and
make sure it is the first acquired lockdep map of the associated
ww_mutex class. Then hold it for the duration of the WW/WD transaction.

This has the side effect that trying to lock a ww mutex *without* a
ww_acquire_context but where a such context has been acquire, we'd see
a lockdep splat. The test-ww_mutex.c selftest attempts to do that, so
modify that particular test to not acquire a ww_acquire_context if it
is not going to be used.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20241009092031.6356-1-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com
---
 include/linux/ww_mutex.h       | 14 ++++++++++++++
 kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c |  8 +++++---
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
index bb76308..a401a2f 100644
--- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
@@ -65,6 +65,16 @@ struct ww_acquire_ctx {
 #endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
 	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
+	/**
+	 * @first_lock_dep_map: fake lockdep_map for first locked ww_mutex.
+	 *
+	 * lockdep requires the lockdep_map for the first locked ww_mutex
+	 * in a ww transaction to remain in memory until all ww_mutexes of
+	 * the transaction have been unlocked. Ensure this by keeping a
+	 * fake locked ww_mutex lockdep map between ww_acquire_init() and
+	 * ww_acquire_fini().
+	 */
+	struct lockdep_map first_lock_dep_map;
 #endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
 	unsigned int deadlock_inject_interval;
@@ -146,7 +156,10 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
 	debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
 	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
 			 &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
+	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class->mutex_name,
+			 &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
 	mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
+	mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
 #endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
 	ctx->deadlock_inject_interval = 1;
@@ -185,6 +198,7 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_done(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
 static inline void ww_acquire_fini(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+	mutex_release(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
 	mutex_release(&ctx->dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
 #endif
 #ifdef DEBUG_WW_MUTEXES
diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
index 10a5736..5d58b2c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
@@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
 	int ret;
 
 	ww_mutex_init(&mtx.mutex, &ww_class);
-	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
+	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
+		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
 
 	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&mtx.work, test_mutex_work);
 	init_completion(&mtx.ready);
@@ -90,7 +91,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
 		ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mtx.done, TIMEOUT);
 	}
 	ww_mutex_unlock(&mtx.mutex);
-	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
+	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
+		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
 
 	if (ret) {
 		pr_err("%s(flags=%x): mutual exclusion failure\n",
@@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
+	ret = stress(2046, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 

Re: [PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Thomas Hellström]

On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 15:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts
> > the
> > number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and
> > also
> > keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That
> > pointer
> > is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking
> > purposes,
> > but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays
> > in
> > memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed
> > and
> > there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the
> > lockdep_map
> > itself has been released.
> > 
> > In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user
> > unlocks
> > and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and
> > that
> > mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
> > such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.
> > 
> > Note that this is only problem when lockdep is enabled and affects
> > only
> > dereferences of struct lockdep_map.
> > 
> > Adjust to this by adding a fake lockdep_map to the acquired context
> > and
> > make sure it is the first acquired lockdep map of the associated
> > ww_mutex class. Then hold it for the duration of the WW/WD
> > transaction.
> > 
> > This has the side effect that trying to lock a ww mutex *without* a
> > ww_acquire_context but where a such context has been acquire, we'd
> > see
> > a lockdep splat. The test-ww_mutex.c selftest attempts to do that,
> > so
> > modify that particular test to not acquire a ww_acquire_context if
> > it
> > is not going to be used.
> > 
> > v2:
> > - Lower the number of locks in the test-ww_mutex
> >   stress(STRESS_ALL) test to accommodate the dummy lock
> >   introduced in this patch without overflowing lockdep held lock
> >   references.
> 
> Thanks, I rebased tip/locking/core, which should now have this patch.

Thanks.
It takes some time for that failing CI test to run, though so, and
since I can't repro the failure locally I'll keep a watch out.

/Thomas

Re: [PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Boqun Feng]

Hi Thomas,

On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts the
> number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and also
> keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That pointer
> is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking purposes,
> but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays in
> memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed and
> there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the lockdep_map
> itself has been released.
> 
> In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user unlocks
> and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and that
> mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
> such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.
> 
> Note that this is only problem when lockdep is enabled and affects only
> dereferences of struct lockdep_map.
> 
> Adjust to this by adding a fake lockdep_map to the acquired context and
> make sure it is the first acquired lockdep map of the associated
> ww_mutex class. Then hold it for the duration of the WW/WD transaction.
> 
> This has the side effect that trying to lock a ww mutex *without* a
> ww_acquire_context but where a such context has been acquire, we'd see
> a lockdep splat. The test-ww_mutex.c selftest attempts to do that, so
> modify that particular test to not acquire a ww_acquire_context if it
> is not going to be used.
> 
> v2:
> - Lower the number of locks in the test-ww_mutex
>   stress(STRESS_ALL) test to accommodate the dummy lock
>   introduced in this patch without overflowing lockdep held lock
>   references.
> 

Have you tested your patch with lib/locking-selftests.c? It reported two
errors for me:

	[..]   | Wound/wait tests |
	[..]   ---------------------
	[..]                   ww api failures:  ok  |FAILED|  ok  |
	[..]                ww contexts mixing:  ok  |  ok  |
	[..]              finishing ww context:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
	[..]                locking mismatches:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
	[..]                  EDEADLK handling:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
	[..]            spinlock nest unlocked:  ok  |
	[..]                spinlock nest test:  ok  |
	[..]   -----------------------------------------------------
	[..]                                  |block | try  |context|
	[..]   -----------------------------------------------------
	[..]                           context:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
	[..]                               try:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
	[..]                             block:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
	[..]                          spinlock:  ok  |  ok  |FAILED|

The first one is a use case issue, I think and can be fixed similar to
your changes in test-ww_mutex.c:

diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
index 6f6a5fc85b42..6750321e3e9a 100644
--- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
+++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
@@ -1720,8 +1720,6 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
 {
        int ret;

-       WWAI(&t);
-
        /*
         * None of the ww_mutex codepaths should be taken in the 'normal'
         * mutex calls. The easiest way to verify this is by using the
@@ -1770,6 +1768,8 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
        ww_mutex_base_unlock(&o.base);
        WARN_ON(o.ctx != (void *)~0UL);

+       WWAI(&t);
+
        /* nest_lock */
        o.ctx = (void *)~0UL;
        ww_mutex_base_lock_nest_lock(&o.base, &t);

Please confirm whether this change is intended.

The second is a case as follow:

	ww_acquire_init(...);
	spin_lock(...);
	ww_mutex_lock(...); // this should trigger a context
			    // invalidation. But the mutex was
			    // initialized by ww_acquire_init() as a
			    // LD_WAIT_INV lock.

The following could fix this:

diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
index a401a2f31a77..45ff6f7a872b 100644
--- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
@@ -156,8 +156,8 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
        debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
        lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
                         &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
-       lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class->mutex_name,
-                        &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
+       lockdep_init_map_wait(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class->mutex_name,
+                             &ww_class->mutex_key, 0, LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
        mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
        mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
 #endif

A v3 with all these fixed would look good to me, and I can add a
Tested-by tag to it. Thanks!

Regards,
Boqun

> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten@lankhorst.se>
> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/ww_mutex.h       | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c |  8 +++++---
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> index bb763085479a..a401a2f31a77 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> @@ -65,6 +65,16 @@ struct ww_acquire_ctx {
>  #endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>  	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> +	/**
> +	 * @first_lock_dep_map: fake lockdep_map for first locked ww_mutex.
> +	 *
> +	 * lockdep requires the lockdep_map for the first locked ww_mutex
> +	 * in a ww transaction to remain in memory until all ww_mutexes of
> +	 * the transaction have been unlocked. Ensure this by keeping a
> +	 * fake locked ww_mutex lockdep map between ww_acquire_init() and
> +	 * ww_acquire_fini().
> +	 */
> +	struct lockdep_map first_lock_dep_map;
>  #endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
>  	unsigned int deadlock_inject_interval;
> @@ -146,7 +156,10 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
>  	debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
>  	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
>  			 &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> +	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class->mutex_name,
> +			 &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
>  	mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> +	mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx->dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>  #endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
>  	ctx->deadlock_inject_interval = 1;
> @@ -185,6 +198,7 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_done(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
>  static inline void ww_acquire_fini(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
>  {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> +	mutex_release(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
>  	mutex_release(&ctx->dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
>  #endif
>  #ifdef DEBUG_WW_MUTEXES
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> index 10a5736a21c2..5d58b2c0ef98 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> @@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	ww_mutex_init(&mtx.mutex, &ww_class);
> -	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> +		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
>  
>  	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&mtx.work, test_mutex_work);
>  	init_completion(&mtx.ready);
> @@ -90,7 +91,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
>  		ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mtx.done, TIMEOUT);
>  	}
>  	ww_mutex_unlock(&mtx.mutex);
> -	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> +		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
>  
>  	if (ret) {
>  		pr_err("%s(flags=%x): mutual exclusion failure\n",
> @@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
> +	ret = stress(2046, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus, STRESS_ALL);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -- 
> 2.46.0
> 

Re: [PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Thomas Hellström]

Hi!

On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 13:23 -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts
> > the
> > number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and
> > also
> > keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That
> > pointer
> > is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking
> > purposes,
> > but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays
> > in
> > memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed
> > and
> > there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the
> > lockdep_map
> > itself has been released.
> > 
> > In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user
> > unlocks
> > and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and
> > that
> > mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
> > such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.
> > 
> > Note that this is only problem when lockdep is enabled and affects
> > only
> > dereferences of struct lockdep_map.
> > 
> > Adjust to this by adding a fake lockdep_map to the acquired context
> > and
> > make sure it is the first acquired lockdep map of the associated
> > ww_mutex class. Then hold it for the duration of the WW/WD
> > transaction.
> > 
> > This has the side effect that trying to lock a ww mutex *without* a
> > ww_acquire_context but where a such context has been acquire, we'd
> > see
> > a lockdep splat. The test-ww_mutex.c selftest attempts to do that,
> > so
> > modify that particular test to not acquire a ww_acquire_context if
> > it
> > is not going to be used.
> > 
> > v2:
> > - Lower the number of locks in the test-ww_mutex
> >   stress(STRESS_ALL) test to accommodate the dummy lock
> >   introduced in this patch without overflowing lockdep held lock
> >   references.
> > 
> 
> Have you tested your patch with lib/locking-selftests.c? It reported
> two
> errors for me:

Let me take a look at these. Thanks for the report.

/Thomas
 

> 
> 	[..]   | Wound/wait tests |
> 	[..]   ---------------------
> 	[..]                   ww api failures:  ok  |FAILED|  ok  |
> 	[..]                ww contexts mixing:  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]              finishing ww context:  ok  |  ok  |  ok 
> |  ok  |
> 	[..]                locking mismatches:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]                  EDEADLK handling:  ok  |  ok  |  ok 
> |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]            spinlock nest unlocked:  ok  |
> 	[..]                spinlock nest test:  ok  |
> 	[..]   -----------------------------------------------------
> 	[..]                                  |block | try 
> |context|
> 	[..]   -----------------------------------------------------
> 	[..]                           context:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]                               try:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]                             block:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]                          spinlock:  ok  |  ok  |FAILED|
> 
> The first one is a use case issue, I think and can be fixed similar
> to
> your changes in test-ww_mutex.c:
> 
> diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> index 6f6a5fc85b42..6750321e3e9a 100644
> --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
> +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> @@ -1720,8 +1720,6 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
>  {
>         int ret;
> 
> -       WWAI(&t);
> -
>         /*
>          * None of the ww_mutex codepaths should be taken in the
> 'normal'
>          * mutex calls. The easiest way to verify this is by using
> the
> @@ -1770,6 +1768,8 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
>         ww_mutex_base_unlock(&o.base);
>         WARN_ON(o.ctx != (void *)~0UL);
> 
> +       WWAI(&t);
> +
>         /* nest_lock */
>         o.ctx = (void *)~0UL;
>         ww_mutex_base_lock_nest_lock(&o.base, &t);
> 
> Please confirm whether this change is intended.
> 
> The second is a case as follow:
> 
> 	ww_acquire_init(...);
> 	spin_lock(...);
> 	ww_mutex_lock(...); // this should trigger a context
> 			    // invalidation. But the mutex was
> 			    // initialized by ww_acquire_init() as a
> 			    // LD_WAIT_INV lock.
> 
> The following could fix this:
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> index a401a2f31a77..45ff6f7a872b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> @@ -156,8 +156,8 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct
> ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
>         debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
>         lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
>                          &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> -       lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> >mutex_name,
> -                        &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
> +       lockdep_init_map_wait(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> >mutex_name,
> +                             &ww_class->mutex_key, 0,
> LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
>         mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
>         mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx-
> >dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>  #endif
> 
> A v3 with all these fixed would look good to me, and I can add a
> Tested-by tag to it. Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten@lankhorst.se>
> > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/ww_mutex.h       | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >  kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c |  8 +++++---
> >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > index bb763085479a..a401a2f31a77 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > @@ -65,6 +65,16 @@ struct ww_acquire_ctx {
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> >  	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> > +	/**
> > +	 * @first_lock_dep_map: fake lockdep_map for first locked
> > ww_mutex.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * lockdep requires the lockdep_map for the first locked
> > ww_mutex
> > +	 * in a ww transaction to remain in memory until all
> > ww_mutexes of
> > +	 * the transaction have been unlocked. Ensure this by
> > keeping a
> > +	 * fake locked ww_mutex lockdep map between
> > ww_acquire_init() and
> > +	 * ww_acquire_fini().
> > +	 */
> > +	struct lockdep_map first_lock_dep_map;
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> >  	unsigned int deadlock_inject_interval;
> > @@ -146,7 +156,10 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct
> > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> >  	debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
> >  	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
> >  			 &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> > +	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> > >mutex_name,
> > +			 &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
> >  	mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > +	mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx-
> > >dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> >  	ctx->deadlock_inject_interval = 1;
> > @@ -185,6 +198,7 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_done(struct
> > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> >  static inline void ww_acquire_fini(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> >  {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > +	mutex_release(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> >  	mutex_release(&ctx->dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef DEBUG_WW_MUTEXES
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-
> > ww_mutex.c
> > index 10a5736a21c2..5d58b2c0ef98 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> > @@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> >  	ww_mutex_init(&mtx.mutex, &ww_class);
> > -	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> > +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> > +		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> >  
> >  	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&mtx.work, test_mutex_work);
> >  	init_completion(&mtx.ready);
> > @@ -90,7 +91,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> >  		ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mtx.done,
> > TIMEOUT);
> >  	}
> >  	ww_mutex_unlock(&mtx.mutex);
> > -	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> > +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> > +		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> >  
> >  	if (ret) {
> >  		pr_err("%s(flags=%x): mutual exclusion failure\n",
> > @@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > -	ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus,
> > STRESS_ALL);
> > +	ret = stress(2046, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus,
> > STRESS_ALL);
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.46.0
> > 

Re: [PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Thomas Hellström]

On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 13:23 -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 11:20:31AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > When using mutex_acquire_nest() with a nest_lock, lockdep refcounts
> > the
> > number of acquired lockdep_maps of mutexes of the same class, and
> > also
> > keeps a pointer to the first acquired lockdep_map of a class. That
> > pointer
> > is then used for various comparison-, printing- and checking
> > purposes,
> > but there is no mechanism to actively ensure that lockdep_map stays
> > in
> > memory. Instead, a warning is printed if the lockdep_map is freed
> > and
> > there are still held locks of the same lock class, even if the
> > lockdep_map
> > itself has been released.
> > 
> > In the context of WW/WD transactions that means that if a user
> > unlocks
> > and frees a ww_mutex from within an ongoing ww transaction, and
> > that
> > mutex happens to be the first ww_mutex grabbed in the transaction,
> > such a warning is printed and there might be a risk of a UAF.
> > 
> > Note that this is only problem when lockdep is enabled and affects
> > only
> > dereferences of struct lockdep_map.
> > 
> > Adjust to this by adding a fake lockdep_map to the acquired context
> > and
> > make sure it is the first acquired lockdep map of the associated
> > ww_mutex class. Then hold it for the duration of the WW/WD
> > transaction.
> > 
> > This has the side effect that trying to lock a ww mutex *without* a
> > ww_acquire_context but where a such context has been acquire, we'd
> > see
> > a lockdep splat. The test-ww_mutex.c selftest attempts to do that,
> > so
> > modify that particular test to not acquire a ww_acquire_context if
> > it
> > is not going to be used.
> > 
> > v2:
> > - Lower the number of locks in the test-ww_mutex
> >   stress(STRESS_ALL) test to accommodate the dummy lock
> >   introduced in this patch without overflowing lockdep held lock
> >   references.
> > 
> 
> Have you tested your patch with lib/locking-selftests.c? It reported
> two
> errors for me:
> 
> 	[..]   | Wound/wait tests |
> 	[..]   ---------------------
> 	[..]                   ww api failures:  ok  |FAILED|  ok  |
> 	[..]                ww contexts mixing:  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]              finishing ww context:  ok  |  ok  |  ok 
> |  ok  |
> 	[..]                locking mismatches:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]                  EDEADLK handling:  ok  |  ok  |  ok 
> |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]            spinlock nest unlocked:  ok  |
> 	[..]                spinlock nest test:  ok  |
> 	[..]   -----------------------------------------------------
> 	[..]                                  |block | try 
> |context|
> 	[..]   -----------------------------------------------------
> 	[..]                           context:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]                               try:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]                             block:  ok  |  ok  |  ok  |
> 	[..]                          spinlock:  ok  |  ok  |FAILED|
> 
> The first one is a use case issue, I think and can be fixed similar
> to
> your changes in test-ww_mutex.c:
> 
> diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> index 6f6a5fc85b42..6750321e3e9a 100644
> --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
> +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> @@ -1720,8 +1720,6 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
>  {
>         int ret;
> 
> -       WWAI(&t);
> -
>         /*
>          * None of the ww_mutex codepaths should be taken in the
> 'normal'
>          * mutex calls. The easiest way to verify this is by using
> the
> @@ -1770,6 +1768,8 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
>         ww_mutex_base_unlock(&o.base);
>         WARN_ON(o.ctx != (void *)~0UL);
> 
> +       WWAI(&t);
> +
>         /* nest_lock */
>         o.ctx = (void *)~0UL;
>         ww_mutex_base_lock_nest_lock(&o.base, &t);
> 
> Please confirm whether this change is intended.

This fix looks correct and while this change was not intended, I think
it makes sense and if this locking order is present in existing code
apart from this selftest, it's probably easily fixable.

> 
> The second is a case as follow:
> 
> 	ww_acquire_init(...);
> 	spin_lock(...);
> 	ww_mutex_lock(...); // this should trigger a context
> 			    // invalidation. But the mutex was
> 			    // initialized by ww_acquire_init() as a
> 			    // LD_WAIT_INV lock.
> 
> The following could fix this:
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> index a401a2f31a77..45ff6f7a872b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> @@ -156,8 +156,8 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct
> ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
>         debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
>         lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
>                          &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> -       lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> >mutex_name,
> -                        &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
> +       lockdep_init_map_wait(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> >mutex_name,
> +                             &ww_class->mutex_key, 0,
> LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
>         mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
>         mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx-
> >dep_map, _RET_IP_);
>  #endif
> 
> A v3 with all these fixed would look good to me, and I can add a
> Tested-by tag to it. Thanks!

The fix here is a bit confusing. It looks like this test is crafted to
fail because we take a sleeping ww_mutex inside a spinlock. But the
ww_mutex lockdep map is already initialized as LD_WAIT_SLEEP. How come
the first_lock_dep_map locking mode LD_WAIT_INV is used in the
ww_mutex_lock()? Is that because of the lockdep hlock refcounting?

Thanks,
Thomas



> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten@lankhorst.se>
> > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/ww_mutex.h       | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >  kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c |  8 +++++---
> >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > index bb763085479a..a401a2f31a77 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > @@ -65,6 +65,16 @@ struct ww_acquire_ctx {
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> >  	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> > +	/**
> > +	 * @first_lock_dep_map: fake lockdep_map for first locked
> > ww_mutex.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * lockdep requires the lockdep_map for the first locked
> > ww_mutex
> > +	 * in a ww transaction to remain in memory until all
> > ww_mutexes of
> > +	 * the transaction have been unlocked. Ensure this by
> > keeping a
> > +	 * fake locked ww_mutex lockdep map between
> > ww_acquire_init() and
> > +	 * ww_acquire_fini().
> > +	 */
> > +	struct lockdep_map first_lock_dep_map;
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> >  	unsigned int deadlock_inject_interval;
> > @@ -146,7 +156,10 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct
> > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> >  	debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
> >  	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
> >  			 &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> > +	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> > >mutex_name,
> > +			 &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
> >  	mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > +	mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx-
> > >dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> >  	ctx->deadlock_inject_interval = 1;
> > @@ -185,6 +198,7 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_done(struct
> > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> >  static inline void ww_acquire_fini(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> >  {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > +	mutex_release(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> >  	mutex_release(&ctx->dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> >  #endif
> >  #ifdef DEBUG_WW_MUTEXES
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-
> > ww_mutex.c
> > index 10a5736a21c2..5d58b2c0ef98 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> > @@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> >  	ww_mutex_init(&mtx.mutex, &ww_class);
> > -	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> > +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> > +		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> >  
> >  	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&mtx.work, test_mutex_work);
> >  	init_completion(&mtx.ready);
> > @@ -90,7 +91,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> >  		ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mtx.done,
> > TIMEOUT);
> >  	}
> >  	ww_mutex_unlock(&mtx.mutex);
> > -	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> > +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> > +		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> >  
> >  	if (ret) {
> >  		pr_err("%s(flags=%x): mutual exclusion failure\n",
> > @@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > -	ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus,
> > STRESS_ALL);
> > +	ret = stress(2046, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus,
> > STRESS_ALL);
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.46.0
> > 

Re: [PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Boqun Feng]

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 05:27:28PM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
[..]
> > diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> > index 6f6a5fc85b42..6750321e3e9a 100644
> > --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
> > +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> > @@ -1720,8 +1720,6 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
> >  {
> >         int ret;
> > 
> > -       WWAI(&t);
> > -
> >         /*
> >          * None of the ww_mutex codepaths should be taken in the
> > 'normal'
> >          * mutex calls. The easiest way to verify this is by using
> > the
> > @@ -1770,6 +1768,8 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
> >         ww_mutex_base_unlock(&o.base);
> >         WARN_ON(o.ctx != (void *)~0UL);
> > 
> > +       WWAI(&t);
> > +
> >         /* nest_lock */
> >         o.ctx = (void *)~0UL;
> >         ww_mutex_base_lock_nest_lock(&o.base, &t);
> > 
> > Please confirm whether this change is intended.
> 
> This fix looks correct and while this change was not intended, I think
> it makes sense and if this locking order is present in existing code
> apart from this selftest, it's probably easily fixable.
> 
> > 
> > The second is a case as follow:
> > 
> > 	ww_acquire_init(...);
> > 	spin_lock(...);
> > 	ww_mutex_lock(...); // this should trigger a context
> > 			    // invalidation. But the mutex was
> > 			    // initialized by ww_acquire_init() as a
> > 			    // LD_WAIT_INV lock.
> > 
> > The following could fix this:
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > index a401a2f31a77..45ff6f7a872b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > @@ -156,8 +156,8 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct
> > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> >         debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
> >         lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
> >                          &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> > -       lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> > >mutex_name,
> > -                        &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
> > +       lockdep_init_map_wait(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> > >mutex_name,
> > +                             &ww_class->mutex_key, 0,
> > LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
> >         mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> >         mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx-
> > >dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> >  #endif
> > 
> > A v3 with all these fixed would look good to me, and I can add a
> > Tested-by tag to it. Thanks!
> 
> The fix here is a bit confusing. It looks like this test is crafted to
> fail because we take a sleeping ww_mutex inside a spinlock. But the
> ww_mutex lockdep map is already initialized as LD_WAIT_SLEEP. How come
> the first_lock_dep_map locking mode LD_WAIT_INV is used in the
> ww_mutex_lock()? Is that because of the lockdep hlock refcounting?
> 

No, it's not because of refcounting, actually in this case refcounting
won't happen because there is a spin_lock sitting in between:

held_locks stack:

	ww_lockdep_acquire
	  ww_lockdep_mutex
	    lock_A

because there is a lock_A here, the following "if" will be false for
ww_mutex_lock() in the test case:

	hlock = curr->held_locks + depth - 1;
	if (hlock->class_idx == class_idx && nest_lock) {

The reason why the wait types of 'first_lock_dep_map' matter is because
the lock class it shares with ww_mutex_lock() are registered at
*acquire* time. So because we do

	ww_acquire_init():
	  ...
	  lockdep_init_map(...);
	  ...
	  mutex_acquire_nest(...);
	...
	ww_mutex_lock():
	  __mutex_lock_common():
	    mutex_acquire_nest(...);

in the test case, these two mutex_acquire_nest()s use different
lockdep_maps but share the same key, therefore whoever call
mutex_acquire_nest() registers the lock class with its wait types.

So even though first_lock_dep_map is a fake lock, it has to have the
same wait types as a real mutex.

Does this make sense?

Regards,
Boqun

> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> > 
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten@lankhorst.se>
> > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/ww_mutex.h       | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > >  kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c |  8 +++++---
> > >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > index bb763085479a..a401a2f31a77 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > @@ -65,6 +65,16 @@ struct ww_acquire_ctx {
> > >  #endif
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > >  	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> > > +	/**
> > > +	 * @first_lock_dep_map: fake lockdep_map for first locked
> > > ww_mutex.
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * lockdep requires the lockdep_map for the first locked
> > > ww_mutex
> > > +	 * in a ww transaction to remain in memory until all
> > > ww_mutexes of
> > > +	 * the transaction have been unlocked. Ensure this by
> > > keeping a
> > > +	 * fake locked ww_mutex lockdep map between
> > > ww_acquire_init() and
> > > +	 * ww_acquire_fini().
> > > +	 */
> > > +	struct lockdep_map first_lock_dep_map;
> > >  #endif
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> > >  	unsigned int deadlock_inject_interval;
> > > @@ -146,7 +156,10 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct
> > > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > >  	debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
> > >  	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
> > >  			 &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> > > +	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> > > >mutex_name,
> > > +			 &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
> > >  	mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > > +	mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx-
> > > >dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> > >  #endif
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> > >  	ctx->deadlock_inject_interval = 1;
> > > @@ -185,6 +198,7 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_done(struct
> > > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> > >  static inline void ww_acquire_fini(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> > >  {
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > > +	mutex_release(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> > >  	mutex_release(&ctx->dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> > >  #endif
> > >  #ifdef DEBUG_WW_MUTEXES
> > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c b/kernel/locking/test-
> > > ww_mutex.c
> > > index 10a5736a21c2..5d58b2c0ef98 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> > > @@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> > >  	int ret;
> > >  
> > >  	ww_mutex_init(&mtx.mutex, &ww_class);
> > > -	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> > > +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> > > +		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> > >  
> > >  	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&mtx.work, test_mutex_work);
> > >  	init_completion(&mtx.ready);
> > > @@ -90,7 +91,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> > >  		ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mtx.done,
> > > TIMEOUT);
> > >  	}
> > >  	ww_mutex_unlock(&mtx.mutex);
> > > -	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> > > +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> > > +		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> > >  
> > >  	if (ret) {
> > >  		pr_err("%s(flags=%x): mutual exclusion failure\n",
> > > @@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
> > >  	if (ret)
> > >  		return ret;
> > >  
> > > -	ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus,
> > > STRESS_ALL);
> > > +	ret = stress(2046, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus,
> > > STRESS_ALL);
> > >  	if (ret)
> > >  		return ret;
> > >  
> > > -- 
> > > 2.46.0
> > > 
> 

Re: [PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Thomas Hellström]

On Tue, 2024-10-15 at 11:00 -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 05:27:28PM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> [..]
> > > diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> > > index 6f6a5fc85b42..6750321e3e9a 100644
> > > --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c
> > > +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c
> > > @@ -1720,8 +1720,6 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
> > >  {
> > >         int ret;
> > > 
> > > -       WWAI(&t);
> > > -
> > >         /*
> > >          * None of the ww_mutex codepaths should be taken in the
> > > 'normal'
> > >          * mutex calls. The easiest way to verify this is by
> > > using
> > > the
> > > @@ -1770,6 +1768,8 @@ static void ww_test_normal(void)
> > >         ww_mutex_base_unlock(&o.base);
> > >         WARN_ON(o.ctx != (void *)~0UL);
> > > 
> > > +       WWAI(&t);
> > > +
> > >         /* nest_lock */
> > >         o.ctx = (void *)~0UL;
> > >         ww_mutex_base_lock_nest_lock(&o.base, &t);
> > > 
> > > Please confirm whether this change is intended.
> > 
> > This fix looks correct and while this change was not intended, I
> > think
> > it makes sense and if this locking order is present in existing
> > code
> > apart from this selftest, it's probably easily fixable.
> > 
> > > 
> > > The second is a case as follow:
> > > 
> > > 	ww_acquire_init(...);
> > > 	spin_lock(...);
> > > 	ww_mutex_lock(...); // this should trigger a context
> > > 			    // invalidation. But the mutex was
> > > 			    // initialized by ww_acquire_init()
> > > as a
> > > 			    // LD_WAIT_INV lock.
> > > 
> > > The following could fix this:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > index a401a2f31a77..45ff6f7a872b 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > @@ -156,8 +156,8 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct
> > > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > >         debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
> > >         lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class->acquire_name,
> > >                          &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> > > -       lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> > > > mutex_name,
> > > -                        &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
> > > +       lockdep_init_map_wait(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> > > > mutex_name,
> > > +                             &ww_class->mutex_key, 0,
> > > LD_WAIT_SLEEP);
> > >         mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > >         mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, &ctx-
> > > > dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> > >  #endif
> > > 
> > > A v3 with all these fixed would look good to me, and I can add a
> > > Tested-by tag to it. Thanks!
> > 
> > The fix here is a bit confusing. It looks like this test is crafted
> > to
> > fail because we take a sleeping ww_mutex inside a spinlock. But the
> > ww_mutex lockdep map is already initialized as LD_WAIT_SLEEP. How
> > come
> > the first_lock_dep_map locking mode LD_WAIT_INV is used in the
> > ww_mutex_lock()? Is that because of the lockdep hlock refcounting?
> > 
> 
> No, it's not because of refcounting, actually in this case
> refcounting
> won't happen because there is a spin_lock sitting in between:
> 
> held_locks stack:
> 
> 	ww_lockdep_acquire
> 	  ww_lockdep_mutex
> 	    lock_A
> 
> because there is a lock_A here, the following "if" will be false for
> ww_mutex_lock() in the test case:
> 
> 	hlock = curr->held_locks + depth - 1;
> 	if (hlock->class_idx == class_idx && nest_lock) {
> 
> The reason why the wait types of 'first_lock_dep_map' matter is
> because
> the lock class it shares with ww_mutex_lock() are registered at
> *acquire* time. So because we do
> 
> 	ww_acquire_init():
> 	  ...
> 	  lockdep_init_map(...);
> 	  ...
> 	  mutex_acquire_nest(...);
> 	...
> 	ww_mutex_lock():
> 	  __mutex_lock_common():
> 	    mutex_acquire_nest(...);
> 
> in the test case, these two mutex_acquire_nest()s use different
> lockdep_maps but share the same key, therefore whoever call
> mutex_acquire_nest() registers the lock class with its wait types.
> 
> So even though first_lock_dep_map is a fake lock, it has to have the
> same wait types as a real mutex.

Understood.
> 
> Does this make sense?

Yes it does. I'll update to a v3, and add a Tested-by: tag. Would you
like a Co-developed-by: tag as well?

Thanks,
Thomas


> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Thomas
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Boqun
> > > 
> > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > > Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten@lankhorst.se>
> > > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > > > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
> > > > <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/linux/ww_mutex.h       | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > >  kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c |  8 +++++---
> > > >  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > > b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > > index bb763085479a..a401a2f31a77 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/ww_mutex.h
> > > > @@ -65,6 +65,16 @@ struct ww_acquire_ctx {
> > > >  #endif
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > > >  	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> > > > +	/**
> > > > +	 * @first_lock_dep_map: fake lockdep_map for first
> > > > locked
> > > > ww_mutex.
> > > > +	 *
> > > > +	 * lockdep requires the lockdep_map for the first
> > > > locked
> > > > ww_mutex
> > > > +	 * in a ww transaction to remain in memory until all
> > > > ww_mutexes of
> > > > +	 * the transaction have been unlocked. Ensure this by
> > > > keeping a
> > > > +	 * fake locked ww_mutex lockdep map between
> > > > ww_acquire_init() and
> > > > +	 * ww_acquire_fini().
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	struct lockdep_map first_lock_dep_map;
> > > >  #endif
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> > > >  	unsigned int deadlock_inject_interval;
> > > > @@ -146,7 +156,10 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_init(struct
> > > > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx,
> > > >  	debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)ctx, sizeof(*ctx));
> > > >  	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->dep_map, ww_class-
> > > > >acquire_name,
> > > >  			 &ww_class->acquire_key, 0);
> > > > +	lockdep_init_map(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, ww_class-
> > > > > mutex_name,
> > > > +			 &ww_class->mutex_key, 0);
> > > >  	mutex_acquire(&ctx->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > > > +	mutex_acquire_nest(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, 0, 0,
> > > > &ctx-
> > > > > dep_map, _RET_IP_);
> > > >  #endif
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH
> > > >  	ctx->deadlock_inject_interval = 1;
> > > > @@ -185,6 +198,7 @@ static inline void ww_acquire_done(struct
> > > > ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> > > >  static inline void ww_acquire_fini(struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> > > >  {
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > > > +	mutex_release(&ctx->first_lock_dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> > > >  	mutex_release(&ctx->dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> > > >  #endif
> > > >  #ifdef DEBUG_WW_MUTEXES
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> > > > b/kernel/locking/test-
> > > > ww_mutex.c
> > > > index 10a5736a21c2..5d58b2c0ef98 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c
> > > > @@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> > > >  	int ret;
> > > >  
> > > >  	ww_mutex_init(&mtx.mutex, &ww_class);
> > > > -	ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> > > > +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> > > > +		ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
> > > >  
> > > >  	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&mtx.work, test_mutex_work);
> > > >  	init_completion(&mtx.ready);
> > > > @@ -90,7 +91,8 @@ static int __test_mutex(unsigned int flags)
> > > >  		ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mtx.done,
> > > > TIMEOUT);
> > > >  	}
> > > >  	ww_mutex_unlock(&mtx.mutex);
> > > > -	ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> > > > +	if (flags & TEST_MTX_CTX)
> > > > +		ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (ret) {
> > > >  		pr_err("%s(flags=%x): mutual exclusion
> > > > failure\n",
> > > > @@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ static int __init test_ww_mutex_init(void)
> > > >  	if (ret)
> > > >  		return ret;
> > > >  
> > > > -	ret = stress(2047, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus,
> > > > STRESS_ALL);
> > > > +	ret = stress(2046, hweight32(STRESS_ALL)*ncpus,
> > > > STRESS_ALL);
> > > >  	if (ret)
> > > >  		return ret;
> > > >  
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.46.0
> > > > 
> > 

Re: [PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Boqun Feng]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 08:17:50AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
[...]
> > 
> > So even though first_lock_dep_map is a fake lock, it has to have the
> > same wait types as a real mutex.
> 
> Understood.
> > 
> > Does this make sense?
> 
> Yes it does. I'll update to a v3, and add a Tested-by: tag. Would you

I think you should send a v3 then after I test, I will send my
Tested-by.

> like a Co-developed-by: tag as well?

It's not a big change onto yours, but feel free to add it.

Regards,
Boqun

> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> 
[...]

Re: [PATCH v2] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Thomas Hellström]

On Wed, 2024-10-16 at 10:12 -0700, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 08:17:50AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> [...]
> > > 
> > > So even though first_lock_dep_map is a fake lock, it has to have
> > > the
> > > same wait types as a real mutex.
> > 
> > Understood.
> > > 
> > > Does this make sense?
> > 
> > Yes it does. I'll update to a v3, and add a Tested-by: tag. Would
> > you
> 
> I think you should send a v3 then after I test, I will send my
> Tested-by.
> 
> > like a Co-developed-by: tag as well?
> 
> It's not a big change onto yours, but feel free to add it.

It would probably have taken me considerable time to find that missing
LD_WAIT_SLEEP, but I forgot to ask for your S-O-B so I sent the patch
without. Perhaps can be added at commit time if needed.

Thanks again,
Thomas


> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Thomas
> > 
> > 
> [...]