From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org
Cc: elver@google.com, andreyknvl@google.com, glider@google.com,
dvyukov@google.com, cai@lca.pw, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH kcsan 26/29] kcsan: Make barrier tests compatible with lockdep
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:04:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211214220439.2236564-26-paulmck@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211214220356.GA2236323@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
The barrier tests in selftest and the kcsan_test module only need the
spinlock and mutex to test correct barrier instrumentation. Therefore,
these were initially placed on the stack.
However, lockdep asserts that locks are in static storage, and will
generate this warning:
| INFO: trying to register non-static key.
| The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe
| you didn't initialize this object before use?
| turning off the locking correctness validator.
| CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.16.0-rc1+ #3208
| Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
| Call Trace:
| <TASK>
| dump_stack_lvl+0x88/0xd8
| dump_stack+0x15/0x1b
| register_lock_class+0x6b3/0x840
| ...
| test_barrier+0x490/0x14c7
| kcsan_selftest+0x47/0xa0
| ...
To fix, move the test locks into static storage.
Fixing the above also revealed that lock operations are strengthened on
first use with lockdep enabled, due to lockdep calling out into
non-instrumented files (recall that kernel/locking/lockdep.c is not
instrumented with KCSAN).
Only kcsan_test checks for over-instrumentation of *_lock() operations,
where we can simply "warm up" the test locks to avoid the test case
failing with lockdep.
Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
kernel/kcsan/selftest.c | 14 +++++++-------
2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c b/kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c
index 5bf94550bcdf6..2bad0820f73ad 100644
--- a/kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c
+++ b/kernel/kcsan/kcsan_test.c
@@ -300,6 +300,8 @@ static struct {
long val[8];
} test_struct;
static DEFINE_SEQLOCK(test_seqlock);
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(test_spinlock);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(test_mutex);
/*
* Helper to avoid compiler optimizing out reads, and to generate source values
@@ -523,8 +525,6 @@ static void test_barrier_nothreads(struct kunit *test)
struct kcsan_scoped_access *reorder_access = NULL;
#endif
arch_spinlock_t arch_spinlock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
- DEFINE_SPINLOCK(spinlock);
- DEFINE_MUTEX(mutex);
atomic_t dummy;
KCSAN_TEST_REQUIRES(test, reorder_access != NULL);
@@ -543,6 +543,15 @@ static void test_barrier_nothreads(struct kunit *test)
#define KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(b, o) __KCSAN_EXPECT_BARRIER(KCSAN_ACCESS_WRITE, b, o, #b)
#define KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(b, o) __KCSAN_EXPECT_BARRIER(KCSAN_ACCESS_COMPOUND | KCSAN_ACCESS_WRITE, b, o, #b)
+ /*
+ * Lockdep initialization can strengthen certain locking operations due
+ * to calling into instrumented files; "warm up" our locks.
+ */
+ spin_lock(&test_spinlock);
+ spin_unlock(&test_spinlock);
+ mutex_lock(&test_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&test_mutex);
+
/* Force creating a valid entry in reorder_access first. */
test_var = 0;
while (test_var++ < 1000000 && reorder_access->size != sizeof(test_var))
@@ -592,10 +601,10 @@ static void test_barrier_nothreads(struct kunit *test)
KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte(0, &test_var), true);
KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(arch_spin_lock(&arch_spinlock), false);
KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(arch_spin_unlock(&arch_spinlock), true);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(spin_lock(&spinlock), false);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&spinlock), true);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(mutex_lock(&mutex), false);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(mutex_unlock(&mutex), true);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(spin_lock(&test_spinlock), false);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&test_spinlock), true);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(mutex_lock(&test_mutex), false);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_READ_BARRIER(mutex_unlock(&test_mutex), true);
KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(mb(), true);
KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(wmb(), true);
@@ -638,10 +647,10 @@ static void test_barrier_nothreads(struct kunit *test)
KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte(0, &test_var), true);
KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(arch_spin_lock(&arch_spinlock), false);
KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(arch_spin_unlock(&arch_spinlock), true);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(spin_lock(&spinlock), false);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&spinlock), true);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(mutex_lock(&mutex), false);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(mutex_unlock(&mutex), true);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(spin_lock(&test_spinlock), false);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&test_spinlock), true);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(mutex_lock(&test_mutex), false);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_WRITE_BARRIER(mutex_unlock(&test_mutex), true);
KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(mb(), true);
KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(wmb(), true);
@@ -684,10 +693,10 @@ static void test_barrier_nothreads(struct kunit *test)
KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte(0, &test_var), true);
KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(arch_spin_lock(&arch_spinlock), false);
KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(arch_spin_unlock(&arch_spinlock), true);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(spin_lock(&spinlock), false);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&spinlock), true);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(mutex_lock(&mutex), false);
- KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(mutex_unlock(&mutex), true);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(spin_lock(&test_spinlock), false);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&test_spinlock), true);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(mutex_lock(&test_mutex), false);
+ KCSAN_EXPECT_RW_BARRIER(mutex_unlock(&test_mutex), true);
kcsan_nestable_atomic_end();
}
diff --git a/kernel/kcsan/selftest.c b/kernel/kcsan/selftest.c
index 08c6b84b9ebed..b6d4da07d80a1 100644
--- a/kernel/kcsan/selftest.c
+++ b/kernel/kcsan/selftest.c
@@ -113,6 +113,7 @@ static bool __init test_matching_access(void)
* positives: simple test to check at boot certain barriers are always properly
* instrumented. See kcsan_test for a more complete test.
*/
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(test_spinlock);
static bool __init test_barrier(void)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_KCSAN_WEAK_MEMORY
@@ -122,7 +123,6 @@ static bool __init test_barrier(void)
#endif
bool ret = true;
arch_spinlock_t arch_spinlock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
- DEFINE_SPINLOCK(spinlock);
atomic_t dummy;
long test_var;
@@ -172,8 +172,8 @@ static bool __init test_barrier(void)
KCSAN_CHECK_READ_BARRIER(clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte(0, &test_var));
arch_spin_lock(&arch_spinlock);
KCSAN_CHECK_READ_BARRIER(arch_spin_unlock(&arch_spinlock));
- spin_lock(&spinlock);
- KCSAN_CHECK_READ_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&spinlock));
+ spin_lock(&test_spinlock);
+ KCSAN_CHECK_READ_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&test_spinlock));
KCSAN_CHECK_WRITE_BARRIER(mb());
KCSAN_CHECK_WRITE_BARRIER(wmb());
@@ -202,8 +202,8 @@ static bool __init test_barrier(void)
KCSAN_CHECK_WRITE_BARRIER(clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte(0, &test_var));
arch_spin_lock(&arch_spinlock);
KCSAN_CHECK_WRITE_BARRIER(arch_spin_unlock(&arch_spinlock));
- spin_lock(&spinlock);
- KCSAN_CHECK_WRITE_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&spinlock));
+ spin_lock(&test_spinlock);
+ KCSAN_CHECK_WRITE_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&test_spinlock));
KCSAN_CHECK_RW_BARRIER(mb());
KCSAN_CHECK_RW_BARRIER(wmb());
@@ -235,8 +235,8 @@ static bool __init test_barrier(void)
KCSAN_CHECK_RW_BARRIER(clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte(0, &test_var));
arch_spin_lock(&arch_spinlock);
KCSAN_CHECK_RW_BARRIER(arch_spin_unlock(&arch_spinlock));
- spin_lock(&spinlock);
- KCSAN_CHECK_RW_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&spinlock));
+ spin_lock(&test_spinlock);
+ KCSAN_CHECK_RW_BARRIER(spin_unlock(&test_spinlock));
kcsan_nestable_atomic_end();
--
2.31.1.189.g2e36527f23
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-14 22:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-14 22:03 [PATCH kcsan 0/29] Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer (KCSAN) updates for v5.17 Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 01/29] kcsan: Refactor reading of instrumented memory Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 02/29] kcsan: Remove redundant zero-initialization of globals Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 03/29] kcsan: Avoid checking scoped accesses from nested contexts Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 04/29] kcsan: Add core support for a subset of weak memory modeling Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 05/29] kcsan: Add core memory barrier instrumentation functions Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 06/29] kcsan, kbuild: Add option for barrier instrumentation only Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 07/29] kcsan: Call scoped accesses reordered in reports Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 08/29] kcsan: Show location access was reordered to Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 09/29] kcsan: Document modeling of weak memory Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 10/29] kcsan: test: Match reordered or normal accesses Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 11/29] kcsan: test: Add test cases for memory barrier instrumentation Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 12/29] kcsan: Ignore GCC 11+ warnings about TSan runtime support Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 13/29] kcsan: selftest: Add test case to check memory barrier instrumentation Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 14/29] locking/barriers, kcsan: Add instrumentation for barriers Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 15/29] locking/barriers, kcsan: Support generic instrumentation Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 16/29] locking/atomics, kcsan: Add instrumentation for barriers Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 17/29] asm-generic/bitops, " Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 18/29] x86/barriers, kcsan: Use generic instrumentation for non-smp barriers Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 19/29] x86/qspinlock, kcsan: Instrument barrier of pv_queued_spin_unlock() Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 20/29] mm, kcsan: Enable barrier instrumentation Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 21/29] sched, kcsan: Enable memory " Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 22/29] objtool, kcsan: Add memory barrier instrumentation to whitelist Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 23/29] objtool, kcsan: Remove memory barrier instrumentation from noinstr Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 24/29] compiler_attributes.h: Add __disable_sanitizer_instrumentation Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 25/29] kcsan: Support WEAK_MEMORY with Clang where no objtool support exists Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 27/29] kcsan: Turn barrier instrumentation into macros Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 28/29] kcsan: Avoid nested contexts reading inconsistent reorder_access Paul E. McKenney
2021-12-14 22:04 ` [PATCH kcsan 29/29] kcsan: Only test clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte if arch defines it Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211214220439.2236564-26-paulmck@kernel.org \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=glider@google.com \
--cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®