| Message ID | 20240715132638.3141-2-bottaawesome633@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v4,1/2] locking/lockdep: Forcing subclasses to have same name pointer as their parent class | expand |
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 04:26:38PM +0300, botta633 wrote: > From: Ahmed Ehab <bottaawesome633@gmail.com> > > Checking if the lockdep_map->name will change when setting the subclass. > It shouldn't change so that the lock class and subclass will have the same > name > > Reported-by: <syzbot+7f4a6f7f7051474e40ad@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> > Fixes: de8f5e4f2dc1f ("lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks") > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> You seems to miss my comment at v2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZpRKcHNZfsMuACRG@boqun-archlinux/ , i.e. you don't need the Reported-by, Fixes and Cc tag for the patch that adds a test case. > Signed-off-by: Ahmed Ehab <bottaawesome633@gmail.com> > --- > v3->v4: > - Fixed subject line truncation. > > lib/locking-selftest.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c > index 6f6a5fc85b42..aeed613799ca 100644 > --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c > +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c > @@ -2710,6 +2710,25 @@ static void local_lock_3B(void) > > } > > + /** ^ there is a tailing space here, next time you can detect this by using checkpatch. Also "/**" style is especially for function signature comment, you could just use a "/*" here. > + * after setting the subclass the lockdep_map.name changes > + * if we initialize a new string literal for the subclass > + * we will have a new name pointer > + */ > +static void class_subclass_X1_name_test(void) > +{ > + printk(" --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n"); > + printk(" | class and subclass name test|\n"); > + printk(" ---------------------\n"); > + const char *name_before_setting_subclass = rwsem_X1.dep_map.name; > + const char *name_after_setting_subclass; > + > + WARN_ON(!rwsem_X1.dep_map.name); > + lockdep_set_subclass(&rwsem_X1, 1); > + name_after_setting_subclass = rwsem_X1.dep_map.name; > + WARN_ON(name_before_setting_subclass != name_after_setting_subclass); > +} > + > static void local_lock_tests(void) > { > printk(" --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n"); > @@ -2916,6 +2935,8 @@ void locking_selftest(void) > > local_lock_tests(); > > + class_subclass_X1_name_test(); > + I got this in the serial log: [ 0.619454] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 0.621463] | local_lock tests | [ 0.622326] --------------------- [ 0.623211] local_lock inversion 2: ok | [ 0.624904] local_lock inversion 3A: ok | [ 0.626740] local_lock inversion 3B: ok | [ 0.628492] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ 0.630513] | class and subclass name test| [ 0.631614] --------------------- [ 0.632502] hardirq_unsafe_softirq_safe: ok | two problems here: 1) The "class and subclass name test" line interrupts the output of testsuite "local_lock tests". 2) Instead of a WARN_ON(), could you look into using dotest() to print "ok" if the test passes, which is consistent with other tests. Could you please fix all above problems and send another version of this patch (no need to resend the first one)? Thanks! Regards, Boqun > print_testname("hardirq_unsafe_softirq_safe"); > dotest(hardirq_deadlock_softirq_not_deadlock, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_SPECIAL); > pr_cont("\n"); > -- > 2.45.2 >
On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 06:00:11AM +0300, ahmed Ehab wrote: > On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 3:51 AM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 04:26:38PM +0300, botta633 wrote: > > > From: Ahmed Ehab <bottaawesome633@gmail.com> > > > > > > Checking if the lockdep_map->name will change when setting the subclass. > > > It shouldn't change so that the lock class and subclass will have the > > same > > > name > > > > > > Reported-by: <syzbot+7f4a6f7f7051474e40ad@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> > > > Fixes: de8f5e4f2dc1f ("lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks") > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > > > > You seems to miss my comment at v2: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZpRKcHNZfsMuACRG@boqun-archlinux/ > > > > , i.e. you don't need the Reported-by, Fixes and Cc tag for the patch > > that adds a test case. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ahmed Ehab <bottaawesome633@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > v3->v4: > > > - Fixed subject line truncation. > > > > > > lib/locking-selftest.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c > > > index 6f6a5fc85b42..aeed613799ca 100644 > > > --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c > > > +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c > > > @@ -2710,6 +2710,25 @@ static void local_lock_3B(void) > > > > > > } > > > > > > + /** > > > > ^ there is a tailing space here, next time you can detect this by using > > checkpatch. Also "/**" style is especially for function signature > > comment, you could just use a "/*" here. > > > > > + * after setting the subclass the lockdep_map.name changes > > > + * if we initialize a new string literal for the subclass > > > + * we will have a new name pointer > > > + */ > > > +static void class_subclass_X1_name_test(void) > > > +{ > > > + printk(" > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n"); > > > + printk(" | class and subclass name test|\n"); > > > + printk(" ---------------------\n"); > > > + const char *name_before_setting_subclass = rwsem_X1.dep_map.name; > > > + const char *name_after_setting_subclass; > > > + > > > + WARN_ON(!rwsem_X1.dep_map.name); > > > + lockdep_set_subclass(&rwsem_X1, 1); > > > + name_after_setting_subclass = rwsem_X1.dep_map.name; > > > + WARN_ON(name_before_setting_subclass != > > name_after_setting_subclass); > > > +} > > > + > > > static void local_lock_tests(void) > > > { > > > printk(" > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n"); > > > @@ -2916,6 +2935,8 @@ void locking_selftest(void) > > > > > > local_lock_tests(); > > > > > > + class_subclass_X1_name_test(); > > > + > > > > I got this in the serial log: > > > > [ 0.619454] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [ 0.621463] | local_lock tests | > > [ 0.622326] --------------------- > > [ 0.623211] local_lock inversion 2: ok | > > [ 0.624904] local_lock inversion 3A: ok | > > [ 0.626740] local_lock inversion 3B: ok | > > [ 0.628492] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [ 0.630513] | class and subclass name test| > > [ 0.631614] --------------------- > > [ 0.632502] hardirq_unsafe_softirq_safe: ok | > > > > two problems here: > > > > 1) The "class and subclass name test" line interrupts the output of > > testsuite "local_lock tests". > > > > 2) Instead of a WARN_ON(), could you look into using dotest() to > > print "ok" if the test passes, which is consistent with other > > > tests. > > > > I wrote it this way: > static void lock_class_subclass_X1(void) > { > const char *name_before_setting_subclass = rwsem_X1.dep_map.name; > const char *name_after_setting_subclass; > > lockdep_set_subclass(&rwsem_X1, 1); > name_after_setting_subclass = rwsem_X1.dep_map.name; > debug_locks = name_before_setting_subclass == name_after_setting_subclass; I think you could use: DEBUG_LOCK_WARN_ON(name_before_setting_subclass != name_after_setting_subclass); here. Regards, Boqun > } > ... > static void class_subclass_X1_name_test(void) > { > printk(" > --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n"); > printk(" | class and subclass name test|\n"); > printk(" ---------------------\n"); > > print_testname("lock class and subclass same name"); > dotest(lock_class_subclass_X1, SUCCESS, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM); > pr_cont("\n"); > } > However, assigning a value to debug_locks seems very uncommon. I tried to > check other test cases; however, they seem to rely on the method they are > testing. Do you have a suggestion for my scenario if I want to compare the > names before and after setting the subclass? > Or you suggest that I follow a different approach other than comparing the > names such as checking debug_locks in lockdep_init_map_type and returning > when we have multiple instantiations for lock->name? > > > > > Could you please fix all above problems and send another version of this > > patch (no need to resend the first one)? Thanks! > > > > Regards, > > Boqun > > > > > print_testname("hardirq_unsafe_softirq_safe"); > > > dotest(hardirq_deadlock_softirq_not_deadlock, FAILURE, > > LOCKTYPE_SPECIAL); > > > pr_cont("\n"); > > > -- > > > 2.45.2 > > > > > > > Regards, > Ahmed
diff --git a/lib/locking-selftest.c b/lib/locking-selftest.c index 6f6a5fc85b42..aeed613799ca 100644 --- a/lib/locking-selftest.c +++ b/lib/locking-selftest.c @@ -2710,6 +2710,25 @@ static void local_lock_3B(void) } + /** + * after setting the subclass the lockdep_map.name changes + * if we initialize a new string literal for the subclass + * we will have a new name pointer + */ +static void class_subclass_X1_name_test(void) +{ + printk(" --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n"); + printk(" | class and subclass name test|\n"); + printk(" ---------------------\n"); + const char *name_before_setting_subclass = rwsem_X1.dep_map.name; + const char *name_after_setting_subclass; + + WARN_ON(!rwsem_X1.dep_map.name); + lockdep_set_subclass(&rwsem_X1, 1); + name_after_setting_subclass = rwsem_X1.dep_map.name; + WARN_ON(name_before_setting_subclass != name_after_setting_subclass); +} + static void local_lock_tests(void) { printk(" --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n"); @@ -2916,6 +2935,8 @@ void locking_selftest(void) local_lock_tests(); + class_subclass_X1_name_test(); + print_testname("hardirq_unsafe_softirq_safe"); dotest(hardirq_deadlock_softirq_not_deadlock, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_SPECIAL); pr_cont("\n");