[PATCH] binder: fix sparse warnings on locking context

[PATCH] binder: fix sparse warnings on locking context

[Todd Kjos]

Add __acquire()/__release() annnotations to fix warnings
in sparse context checking

There is one case where the warning was due to a lack of
a "default:" case in a switch statement where a lock was
being released in each of the cases, so the default
case was added.

Signed-off-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>
---
 drivers/android/binder.c       | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 drivers/android/binder_alloc.c |  1 +
 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
index 9f1000d2a40c7..9f2059d24ae2d 100644
--- a/drivers/android/binder.c
+++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
@@ -660,6 +660,7 @@ struct binder_transaction {
 #define binder_proc_lock(proc) _binder_proc_lock(proc, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_proc_lock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
+	__acquires(&proc->outer_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -675,6 +676,7 @@ _binder_proc_lock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
 #define binder_proc_unlock(_proc) _binder_proc_unlock(_proc, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_proc_unlock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
+	__releases(&proc->outer_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -690,6 +692,7 @@ _binder_proc_unlock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
 #define binder_inner_proc_lock(proc) _binder_inner_proc_lock(proc, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_inner_proc_lock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
+	__acquires(&proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -705,6 +708,7 @@ _binder_inner_proc_lock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
 #define binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc) _binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_inner_proc_unlock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
+	__releases(&proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -720,6 +724,7 @@ _binder_inner_proc_unlock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
 #define binder_node_lock(node) _binder_node_lock(node, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_node_lock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
+	__acquires(&node->lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -735,6 +740,7 @@ _binder_node_lock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
 #define binder_node_unlock(node) _binder_node_unlock(node, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_node_unlock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
+	__releases(&node->lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -751,12 +757,16 @@ _binder_node_unlock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
 #define binder_node_inner_lock(node) _binder_node_inner_lock(node, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_node_inner_lock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
+	__acquires(&node->lock) __acquires(&node->proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
 	spin_lock(&node->lock);
 	if (node->proc)
 		binder_inner_proc_lock(node->proc);
+	else
+		/* annotation for sparse */
+		__acquire(&node->proc->inner_lock);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -768,6 +778,7 @@ _binder_node_inner_lock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
 #define binder_node_inner_unlock(node) _binder_node_inner_unlock(node, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_node_inner_unlock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
+	__releases(&node->lock) __releases(&node->proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	struct binder_proc *proc = node->proc;
 
@@ -775,6 +786,9 @@ _binder_node_inner_unlock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
 	if (proc)
 		binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc);
+	else
+		/* annotation for sparse */
+		__release(&node->proc->inner_lock);
 	spin_unlock(&node->lock);
 }
 
@@ -1384,10 +1398,14 @@ static void binder_dec_node_tmpref(struct binder_node *node)
 	binder_node_inner_lock(node);
 	if (!node->proc)
 		spin_lock(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
+	else
+		__acquire(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
 	node->tmp_refs--;
 	BUG_ON(node->tmp_refs < 0);
 	if (!node->proc)
 		spin_unlock(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
+	else
+		__release(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
 	/*
 	 * Call binder_dec_node() to check if all refcounts are 0
 	 * and cleanup is needed. Calling with strong=0 and internal=1
@@ -1890,18 +1908,22 @@ static struct binder_thread *binder_get_txn_from(
  */
 static struct binder_thread *binder_get_txn_from_and_acq_inner(
 		struct binder_transaction *t)
+	__acquires(&t->from->proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	struct binder_thread *from;
 
 	from = binder_get_txn_from(t);
-	if (!from)
+	if (!from) {
+		__acquire(&from->proc->inner_lock);
 		return NULL;
+	}
 	binder_inner_proc_lock(from->proc);
 	if (t->from) {
 		BUG_ON(from != t->from);
 		return from;
 	}
 	binder_inner_proc_unlock(from->proc);
+	__acquire(&from->proc->inner_lock);
 	binder_thread_dec_tmpref(from);
 	return NULL;
 }
@@ -1973,6 +1995,8 @@ static void binder_send_failed_reply(struct binder_transaction *t,
 			binder_thread_dec_tmpref(target_thread);
 			binder_free_transaction(t);
 			return;
+		} else {
+			__release(&target_thread->proc->inner_lock);
 		}
 		next = t->from_parent;
 
@@ -2394,11 +2418,15 @@ static int binder_translate_handle(struct flat_binder_object *fp,
 		fp->cookie = node->cookie;
 		if (node->proc)
 			binder_inner_proc_lock(node->proc);
+		else
+			__acquire(&node->proc->inner_lock);
 		binder_inc_node_nilocked(node,
 					 fp->hdr.type == BINDER_TYPE_BINDER,
 					 0, NULL);
 		if (node->proc)
 			binder_inner_proc_unlock(node->proc);
+		else
+			__release(&node->proc->inner_lock);
 		trace_binder_transaction_ref_to_node(t, node, &src_rdata);
 		binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_TRANSACTION,
 			     "        ref %d desc %d -> node %d u%016llx\n",
@@ -2762,6 +2790,8 @@ static void binder_transaction(struct binder_proc *proc,
 		binder_set_nice(in_reply_to->saved_priority);
 		target_thread = binder_get_txn_from_and_acq_inner(in_reply_to);
 		if (target_thread == NULL) {
+			/* annotation for sparse */
+			__release(&target_thread->proc->inner_lock);
 			return_error = BR_DEAD_REPLY;
 			return_error_line = __LINE__;
 			goto err_dead_binder;
@@ -4164,6 +4194,11 @@ static int binder_thread_read(struct binder_proc *proc,
 			if (cmd == BR_DEAD_BINDER)
 				goto done; /* DEAD_BINDER notifications can cause transactions */
 		} break;
+		default:
+			binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc);
+			pr_err("%d:%d: bad work type %d\n",
+			       proc->pid, thread->pid, w->type);
+			break;
 		}
 
 		if (!t)
@@ -4467,6 +4502,8 @@ static int binder_thread_release(struct binder_proc *proc,
 		spin_lock(&t->lock);
 		if (t->to_thread == thread)
 			send_reply = t;
+	} else {
+		__acquire(&t->lock);
 	}
 	thread->is_dead = true;
 
@@ -4495,7 +4532,11 @@ static int binder_thread_release(struct binder_proc *proc,
 		spin_unlock(&last_t->lock);
 		if (t)
 			spin_lock(&t->lock);
+		else
+			__acquire(&t->lock);
 	}
+	/* annotation for sparse, lock not acquired in last iteration above */
+	__release(&t->lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * If this thread used poll, make sure we remove the waitqueue
diff --git a/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c b/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c
index 030c98f35cca7..022cd80e80cc3 100644
--- a/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c
+++ b/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c
@@ -939,6 +939,7 @@ enum lru_status binder_alloc_free_page(struct list_head *item,
 				       struct list_lru_one *lru,
 				       spinlock_t *lock,
 				       void *cb_arg)
+	__must_hold(lock)
 {
 	struct mm_struct *mm = NULL;
 	struct binder_lru_page *page = container_of(item,
-- 
2.19.1.930.g4563a0d9d0-goog

Re: [PATCH] binder: fix sparse warnings on locking context

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 06:02:22AM -0800, Todd Kjos wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:57 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 12:24:54PM -0800, Todd Kjos wrote:
> > > Add __acquire()/__release() annnotations to fix warnings
> > > in sparse context checking
> > >
> > > There is one case where the warning was due to a lack of
> > > a "default:" case in a switch statement where a lock was
> > > being released in each of the cases, so the default
> > > case was added.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>
> >
> > You sent out 4 patches here, as a series, but with no numbering so I
> > don't know what order to put them in :(
> >
> > Can you resend them properly numbered so I have a chance to get it
> > right?
> >
> 
> I didn't number them because they are independent and can go in any order.

Ah, that wasn't obvious :)

> They are not really a series. I can resend with numbers though if you want
> to reflect the order I sent them in.

Ok, no need for numbering them, but they do need to be resent based on
the feedback I gave.  I've dropped them all from my queue because of
that.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] binder: fix sparse warnings on locking context

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 12:24:54PM -0800, Todd Kjos wrote:
> Add __acquire()/__release() annnotations to fix warnings
> in sparse context checking
> 
> There is one case where the warning was due to a lack of
> a "default:" case in a switch statement where a lock was
> being released in each of the cases, so the default
> case was added.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>

You sent out 4 patches here, as a series, but with no numbering so I
don't know what order to put them in :(

Can you resend them properly numbered so I have a chance to get it
right?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] binder: fix sparse warnings on locking context

[Luc Van Oostenryck]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 12:24:54PM -0800, Todd Kjos wrote:
> Add __acquire()/__release() annnotations to fix warnings
> in sparse context checking
> 
> There is one case where the warning was due to a lack of
> a "default:" case in a switch statement where a lock was
> being released in each of the cases, so the default
> case was added.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>
> ---
>  drivers/android/binder.c       | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  drivers/android/binder_alloc.c |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
> index 9f1000d2a40c7..9f2059d24ae2d 100644
> --- a/drivers/android/binder.c
> +++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
> @@ -751,12 +757,16 @@ _binder_node_unlock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
>  #define binder_node_inner_lock(node) _binder_node_inner_lock(node, __LINE__)
>  static void
>  _binder_node_inner_lock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
> +	__acquires(&node->lock) __acquires(&node->proc->inner_lock)
>  {
>  	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
>  		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
>  	spin_lock(&node->lock);
>  	if (node->proc)
>  		binder_inner_proc_lock(node->proc);
> +	else
> +		/* annotation for sparse */
> +		__acquire(&node->proc->inner_lock);

This one is questionnable because:
1) if !node->proc, then '&node->proc->inner_lock' is not acquired
   since it doesn't even exist.
2) OTOH, the function can't have the annotation 100% right because
   it semantics allows unbalanced locking depending on node->proc
   being null or not.
But I see very well the intent and maybe it's a right solution.
I dunno.

Same for most of the following ones.


Best regards,
-- Luc Van Oostenryck

[PATCH] binder: fix sparse warnings on locking context

[Todd Kjos]

Add __acquire()/__release() annnotations to fix warnings
in sparse context checking

There is one case where the warning was due to a lack of
a "default:" case in a switch statement where a lock was
being released in each of the cases, so the default
case was added.

Signed-off-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>
---
 drivers/android/binder.c       | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 drivers/android/binder_alloc.c |  1 +
 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/android/binder.c b/drivers/android/binder.c
index 9f1000d2a40c7..9f2059d24ae2d 100644
--- a/drivers/android/binder.c
+++ b/drivers/android/binder.c
@@ -660,6 +660,7 @@ struct binder_transaction {
 #define binder_proc_lock(proc) _binder_proc_lock(proc, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_proc_lock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
+	__acquires(&proc->outer_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -675,6 +676,7 @@ _binder_proc_lock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
 #define binder_proc_unlock(_proc) _binder_proc_unlock(_proc, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_proc_unlock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
+	__releases(&proc->outer_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -690,6 +692,7 @@ _binder_proc_unlock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
 #define binder_inner_proc_lock(proc) _binder_inner_proc_lock(proc, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_inner_proc_lock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
+	__acquires(&proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -705,6 +708,7 @@ _binder_inner_proc_lock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
 #define binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc) _binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_inner_proc_unlock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
+	__releases(&proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -720,6 +724,7 @@ _binder_inner_proc_unlock(struct binder_proc *proc, int line)
 #define binder_node_lock(node) _binder_node_lock(node, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_node_lock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
+	__acquires(&node->lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -735,6 +740,7 @@ _binder_node_lock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
 #define binder_node_unlock(node) _binder_node_unlock(node, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_node_unlock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
+	__releases(&node->lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
@@ -751,12 +757,16 @@ _binder_node_unlock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
 #define binder_node_inner_lock(node) _binder_node_inner_lock(node, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_node_inner_lock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
+	__acquires(&node->lock) __acquires(&node->proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_SPINLOCKS,
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
 	spin_lock(&node->lock);
 	if (node->proc)
 		binder_inner_proc_lock(node->proc);
+	else
+		/* annotation for sparse */
+		__acquire(&node->proc->inner_lock);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -768,6 +778,7 @@ _binder_node_inner_lock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
 #define binder_node_inner_unlock(node) _binder_node_inner_unlock(node, __LINE__)
 static void
 _binder_node_inner_unlock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
+	__releases(&node->lock) __releases(&node->proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	struct binder_proc *proc = node->proc;
 
@@ -775,6 +786,9 @@ _binder_node_inner_unlock(struct binder_node *node, int line)
 		     "%s: line=%d\n", __func__, line);
 	if (proc)
 		binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc);
+	else
+		/* annotation for sparse */
+		__release(&node->proc->inner_lock);
 	spin_unlock(&node->lock);
 }
 
@@ -1384,10 +1398,14 @@ static void binder_dec_node_tmpref(struct binder_node *node)
 	binder_node_inner_lock(node);
 	if (!node->proc)
 		spin_lock(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
+	else
+		__acquire(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
 	node->tmp_refs--;
 	BUG_ON(node->tmp_refs < 0);
 	if (!node->proc)
 		spin_unlock(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
+	else
+		__release(&binder_dead_nodes_lock);
 	/*
 	 * Call binder_dec_node() to check if all refcounts are 0
 	 * and cleanup is needed. Calling with strong=0 and internal=1
@@ -1890,18 +1908,22 @@ static struct binder_thread *binder_get_txn_from(
  */
 static struct binder_thread *binder_get_txn_from_and_acq_inner(
 		struct binder_transaction *t)
+	__acquires(&t->from->proc->inner_lock)
 {
 	struct binder_thread *from;
 
 	from = binder_get_txn_from(t);
-	if (!from)
+	if (!from) {
+		__acquire(&from->proc->inner_lock);
 		return NULL;
+	}
 	binder_inner_proc_lock(from->proc);
 	if (t->from) {
 		BUG_ON(from != t->from);
 		return from;
 	}
 	binder_inner_proc_unlock(from->proc);
+	__acquire(&from->proc->inner_lock);
 	binder_thread_dec_tmpref(from);
 	return NULL;
 }
@@ -1973,6 +1995,8 @@ static void binder_send_failed_reply(struct binder_transaction *t,
 			binder_thread_dec_tmpref(target_thread);
 			binder_free_transaction(t);
 			return;
+		} else {
+			__release(&target_thread->proc->inner_lock);
 		}
 		next = t->from_parent;
 
@@ -2394,11 +2418,15 @@ static int binder_translate_handle(struct flat_binder_object *fp,
 		fp->cookie = node->cookie;
 		if (node->proc)
 			binder_inner_proc_lock(node->proc);
+		else
+			__acquire(&node->proc->inner_lock);
 		binder_inc_node_nilocked(node,
 					 fp->hdr.type == BINDER_TYPE_BINDER,
 					 0, NULL);
 		if (node->proc)
 			binder_inner_proc_unlock(node->proc);
+		else
+			__release(&node->proc->inner_lock);
 		trace_binder_transaction_ref_to_node(t, node, &src_rdata);
 		binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_TRANSACTION,
 			     "        ref %d desc %d -> node %d u%016llx\n",
@@ -2762,6 +2790,8 @@ static void binder_transaction(struct binder_proc *proc,
 		binder_set_nice(in_reply_to->saved_priority);
 		target_thread = binder_get_txn_from_and_acq_inner(in_reply_to);
 		if (target_thread == NULL) {
+			/* annotation for sparse */
+			__release(&target_thread->proc->inner_lock);
 			return_error = BR_DEAD_REPLY;
 			return_error_line = __LINE__;
 			goto err_dead_binder;
@@ -4164,6 +4194,11 @@ static int binder_thread_read(struct binder_proc *proc,
 			if (cmd == BR_DEAD_BINDER)
 				goto done; /* DEAD_BINDER notifications can cause transactions */
 		} break;
+		default:
+			binder_inner_proc_unlock(proc);
+			pr_err("%d:%d: bad work type %d\n",
+			       proc->pid, thread->pid, w->type);
+			break;
 		}
 
 		if (!t)
@@ -4467,6 +4502,8 @@ static int binder_thread_release(struct binder_proc *proc,
 		spin_lock(&t->lock);
 		if (t->to_thread == thread)
 			send_reply = t;
+	} else {
+		__acquire(&t->lock);
 	}
 	thread->is_dead = true;
 
@@ -4495,7 +4532,11 @@ static int binder_thread_release(struct binder_proc *proc,
 		spin_unlock(&last_t->lock);
 		if (t)
 			spin_lock(&t->lock);
+		else
+			__acquire(&t->lock);
 	}
+	/* annotation for sparse, lock not acquired in last iteration above */
+	__release(&t->lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * If this thread used poll, make sure we remove the waitqueue
diff --git a/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c b/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c
index 030c98f35cca7..022cd80e80cc3 100644
--- a/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c
+++ b/drivers/android/binder_alloc.c
@@ -939,6 +939,7 @@ enum lru_status binder_alloc_free_page(struct list_head *item,
 				       struct list_lru_one *lru,
 				       spinlock_t *lock,
 				       void *cb_arg)
+	__must_hold(lock)
 {
 	struct mm_struct *mm = NULL;
 	struct binder_lru_page *page = container_of(item,
-- 
2.20.0.rc1.387.gf8505762e3-goog