Hi Ahmed,
Sorry I was missing some points on title and changelog, please see below
and refer to Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst:
The title needs to be something like:
locking/lockdep: Avoid creating new name string literals in lockdep_set_subclass()
the title and the changlog needs to be in imperative mode.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 04:26:37PM +0300, botta633 wrote:
> From: Ahmed Ehab <bottaawesome633@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Preventing lockdep_set_subclass from creating a new instance of the
Same here, s/Preventing/Prevent, and when you reference a function, you
want to do "lockdep_set_subclass()" instead of "lockdep_set_subclass".
Besides, overall, you want to structure your changelog as follow:
Syzbot reports a problem that a warning will be triggered while
searching a lock class in look_up_lock_class().
// ^ the problem statement
The cause of the issue is that instead of the existing name of a
lock class, a new name (a string literal) is created and used by
lockdep_set_subclass(), and this results in two lock classes with the
same key but different address of the names, and a WARN_ONCE() is
triggered because of that in look_up_lock_class().
// ^ the analysis of the problem, you can merge the above two into one
// paragraph if that works for you.
To fix this, change lockdep_set_subclass() to use the existing name
instead of a new one. As a result no new name will be created by
lockdep_set_subclass(), hence the warning is avoided.
// ^ the fix.
Please send a new version if these make sense to you. The patch #2 also
needs some changes in the title and changelog, but since that's adding
a new test instead of fixing an issue, you could just write something
like:
Add a test case to ensure that no new name string literal will be
created in lockdep_set_subclass(), otherwise a warning will be triggered
in look_up_lock_class(). Add this to catch the problem in the future.
Thanks!
Regards,
Boqun
> string literal. Hence, we will always have the same class->name among
> parent and subclasses. This prevents kernel panics when looking up a
> lock class while comparing class locks and class names.
>
> Reported-by: <syzbot+7f4a6f7f7051474e40ad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: de8f5e4f2dc1f ("lockdep: Introduce wait-type checks")
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmed Ehab <bottaawesome633@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v3->v4:
> - Fixed subject line truncation.
>
> include/linux/lockdep.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index 08b0d1d9d78b..df8fa5929de7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ static inline void lockdep_init_map(struct lockdep_map *lock, const char *name,
> (lock)->dep_map.lock_type)
>
> #define lockdep_set_subclass(lock, sub) \
> - lockdep_init_map_type(&(lock)->dep_map, #lock, (lock)->dep_map.key, sub,\
> + lockdep_init_map_type(&(lock)->dep_map, (lock)->dep_map.name, (lock)->dep_map.key, sub,\
> (lock)->dep_map.wait_type_inner, \
> (lock)->dep_map.wait_type_outer, \
> (lock)->dep_map.lock_type)
> --
> 2.45.2
