Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-10-27 16:34:53)
> Quoting Peter Zijlstra (2020-10-27 15:45:33)
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:29:10PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > <4> [304.908891] hm#2, depth: 6 [6], 3425cfea6ff31f7f != 547d92e9ec2ab9af
> > > <4> [304.908897] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 5658 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3679 check_chain_key+0x1a4/0x1f0
> >
> > Urgh, I don't think I've _ever_ seen that warning trigger.
> >
> > The comments that go with it suggest memory corruption is the most
> > likely trigger of it. Is it easy to trigger?
>
> For the automated CI, yes, the few machines that run that particular HW
> test seem to hit it regularly. I have not yet reproduced it for myself.
> I thought it looked like something kasan would provide some insight for
> and we should get a kasan run through CI over the w/e. I suspect we've
> feed in some garbage and called it a lock.
I tracked it down to a second invocation of lock_acquire_shared_recursive()
intermingled with some other regular mutexes (in this case ww_mutex).
We hit this path in validate_chain():
/*
* Mark recursive read, as we jump over it when
* building dependencies (just like we jump over
* trylock entries):
*/
if (ret == 2)
hlock->read = 2;
and that is modifying hlock_id() and so the chain-key, after it has
already been computed.
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 035f81b1cc87..f193f756e1e3 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -4831,7 +4831,7 @@ static int __lock_acquire(struct lockdep_map *lock, unsigned int subclass,
if (!validate_chain(curr, hlock, chain_head, chain_key))
return 0;
- curr->curr_chain_key = chain_key;
+ curr->curr_chain_key = iterate_chain_key(chain_key, hlock_id(hlock));
curr->lockdep_depth++;
check_chain_key(curr);
works as a heavy hammer.
-Chris
|