lockdep: Don't create the wrong dependency on hlock->check == 0
Test-case:
DEFINE_MUTEX(m1);
DEFINE_MUTEX(m2);
DEFINE_MUTEX(mx);
void lockdep_should_complain(void)
{
lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&mx);
// m1 -> mx -> m2
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_lock(&mx);
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
mutex_unlock(&mx);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
// m2 -> m1 ; should trigger the warning
mutex_lock(&m2);
mutex_lock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m1);
mutex_unlock(&m2);
}
this doesn't trigger any warning, lockdep can't detect the trivial
deadlock.
This is because lock(&mx) correctly avoids m1 -> mx dependency, it
skips validate_chain() due to mx->check == 0. But lock(&m2) wrongly
adds mx -> m2 and thus m1 -> m2 is not created.
rcu_lock_acquire()->lock_acquire(check => 0) is fine due to read == 2,
so currently only __lockdep_no_validate__ can trigger this problem.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140120182010.GA26498@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 8c85a0d..f7eba92 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1936,12 +1936,12 @@
for (;;) {
int distance = curr->lockdep_depth - depth + 1;
- hlock = curr->held_locks + depth-1;
+ hlock = curr->held_locks + depth - 1;
/*
* Only non-recursive-read entries get new dependencies
* added:
*/
- if (hlock->read != 2) {
+ if (hlock->read != 2 && hlock->check) {
if (!check_prev_add(curr, hlock, next,
distance, trylock_loop))
return 0;