Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.12 3/5] locking/ww_mutex: Adjust to lockdep nest_lock requirements

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 11:06:38AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>On Sun, 2024-11-24 at 07:46 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> From: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit 823a566221a5639f6c69424897218e5d6431a970 ]
>>
>> 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
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
>
>It looks like the last version was not picked for this patch.
>
>https://lore.kernel.org/all/172918113162.1279674.6570518059490493206@2413ebb6fbb6/T/
>
>The version in this autosel patch regresses the locking api selftests
>and should not be backported. Same for the corresponding backports for
>6.11 and 6.6. Let me know if I should reply separately to those.

This is what ended up landing upstream...

I can drop it from the autosel queue, but if this has issues then you
should also fix it up upstream.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha