commit 80c503e0e68fbe271680ab48f0fe29bc034b01b7 upstream.
The __torture_print_stats() function in locktorture.c carefully
initializes local variable "min" to statp[0].n_lock_acquired, but
then compares it to statp[i].n_lock_fail. Given that the .n_lock_fail
field should normally be zero, and given the initialization, it seems
reasonable to display the maximum and minimum number acquisitions
instead of miscomputing the maximum and minimum number of failures.
This commit therefore switches from failures to acquisitions.
And this turns out to be not only a day-zero bug, but entirely my
own fault. I hate it when that happens!
Fixes: 0af3fe1efa53 ("locktorture: Add a lock-torture kernel module")
Reported-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
[ Upstream commit 25016bd7f4caf5fc983bbab7403d08e64cba3004 ]
Qian Cai reported a bug when PROVE_RCU_LIST=y, and read on /proc/lockdep
triggered a warning:
[ ] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->hardirqs_enabled)
...
[ ] Call Trace:
[ ] lock_is_held_type+0x5d/0x150
[ ] ? rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online+0x64/0x80
[ ] rcu_read_lock_any_held+0xac/0x100
[ ] ? rcu_read_lock_held+0xc0/0xc0
[ ] ? __slab_free+0x421/0x540
[ ] ? kasan_kmalloc+0x9/0x10
[ ] ? __kmalloc_node+0x1d7/0x320
[ ] ? kvmalloc_node+0x6f/0x80
[ ] __bfs+0x28a/0x3c0
[ ] ? class_equal+0x30/0x30
[ ] lockdep_count_forward_deps+0x11a/0x1a0
The warning got triggered because lockdep_count_forward_deps() call
__bfs() without current->lockdep_recursion being set, as a result
a lockdep internal function (__bfs()) is checked by lockdep, which is
unexpected, and the inconsistency between the irq-off state and the
state traced by lockdep caused the warning.
Apart from this warning, lockdep internal functions like __bfs() should
always be protected by current->lockdep_recursion to avoid potential
deadlocks and data inconsistency, therefore add the
current->lockdep_recursion on-and-off section to protect __bfs() in both
lockdep_count_forward_deps() and lockdep_count_backward_deps()
Reported-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200312151258.128036-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Paul E. McKenney