Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1325105
| From | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: + kernel-locking-lockdepc-make-lockdep-initialize-itself-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree |
| Date | 2016-02-03 10:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qY2ew-ew-43@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qY0mm-7ok-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qY0mm-7ok-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <qY2eu-ew-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
* Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 02/03/2016 10:44 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Yuck, I don't really like this.
> >
> > Lockdep initialization must happen early on, and it should happen in a well
> > defined place, not be opportunistic (and relatively random) like this, making it
> > dependent on config options and calling contexts.
> >
> > Also, in addition to properly ordering UBSAN initialization, how about fixing the
> > silent crash by adding a lockdep warning to that place instead of an auto-init?
> >
> > The warning will turn lockdep off safely and will generate an actionable kernel
> > message and stackdump upon which the init ordering fix can be done.
> >
>
> Something like this already done for DEBUG_LOCKDEP=y (except it initializes lockdep instead of turning it off).
>
> look_up_lock_class():
> ...
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP
> /*
> * If the architecture calls into lockdep before initializing
> * the hashes then we'll warn about it later. (we cannot printk
> * right now)
> */
> if (unlikely(!lockdep_initialized)) {
> lockdep_init();
> lockdep_init_error = 1;
> lock_init_error = lock->name;
> save_stack_trace(&lockdep_init_trace);
> }
> #endif
well, this is different, as we still generate an error - so it's not a 'permanent
solution' as the changelog says.
> Silent crash happens only in DEBUG_LOCKDEP=n && LOCKDEP=y combination.
> So, what about simply removing this #ifdef (and the other one in lockdep_info() )?
That's fine with me, as long as we also fix the init bug that triggers this code.
Thanks,
Ingo
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: + kernel-locking-lockdepc-make-lockdep-initialize-itself-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-03 08:50 +0100
Re: + kernel-locking-lockdepc-make-lockdep-initialize-itself-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> - 2016-02-03 10:50 +0100
Re: + kernel-locking-lockdepc-make-lockdep-initialize-itself-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-03 10:50 +0100
Re: + kernel-locking-lockdepc-make-lockdep-initialize-itself-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-03 17:50 +0100
Re: + kernel-locking-lockdepc-make-lockdep-initialize-itself-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-03 21:50 +0100
Re: + kernel-locking-lockdepc-make-lockdep-initialize-itself-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-02-03 22:50 +0100
Re: + kernel-locking-lockdepc-make-lockdep-initialize-itself-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> - 2016-02-04 14:20 +0100
Re: + kernel-locking-lockdepc-make-lockdep-initialize-itself-on-demand.patch added to -mm tree Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2016-02-08 10:40 +0100
csiph-web