intf->cmd_rcvrs is traversed with list_for_each_entry_rcu
outside an RCU read-side critical section but under the
protection of intf->cmd_rcvrs_mutex.
ipmi_interfaces is traversed using list_for_each_entry_rcu
outside an RCU read-side critical section but under the protection
of ipmi_interfaces_mutex.
Hence, add the corresponding lockdep expression to the list traversal
primitive to silence false-positive lockdep warnings, and
harden RCU lists.
Add macro for the corresponding lockdep expression to make the code
clean and concise.
Signed-off-by: Amol Grover <[email protected]>
---
v2:
- Fix sparse error
CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
index cad9563f8f48..1cbeacb1e8b9 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
@@ -35,6 +35,8 @@
#include <linux/nospec.h>
#define IPMI_DRIVER_VERSION "39.2"
+#define cmd_rcvrs_mutex_held() \
+ lockdep_is_held(&intf->cmd_rcvrs_mutex)
static struct ipmi_recv_msg *ipmi_alloc_recv_msg(void);
static int ipmi_init_msghandler(void);
@@ -618,6 +620,8 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(ipmidriver_mutex);
static LIST_HEAD(ipmi_interfaces);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(ipmi_interfaces_mutex);
+#define ipmi_interfaces_mutex_held() \
+ lockdep_is_held(&ipmi_interfaces_mutex)
static struct srcu_struct ipmi_interfaces_srcu;
/*
@@ -1321,7 +1325,8 @@ static void _ipmi_destroy_user(struct ipmi_user *user)
* synchronize_srcu()) then free everything in that list.
*/
mutex_lock(&intf->cmd_rcvrs_mutex);
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link) {
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
+ cmd_rcvrs_mutex_held()) {
if (rcvr->user == user) {
list_del_rcu(&rcvr->link);
rcvr->next = rcvrs;
@@ -1599,7 +1604,8 @@ static struct cmd_rcvr *find_cmd_rcvr(struct ipmi_smi *intf,
{
struct cmd_rcvr *rcvr;
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link) {
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
+ rcu_read_lock_held() || cmd_rcvrs_mutex_held()) {
if ((rcvr->netfn == netfn) && (rcvr->cmd == cmd)
&& (rcvr->chans & (1 << chan)))
return rcvr;
@@ -1614,7 +1620,8 @@ static int is_cmd_rcvr_exclusive(struct ipmi_smi *intf,
{
struct cmd_rcvr *rcvr;
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link) {
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
+ cmd_rcvrs_mutex_held()) {
if ((rcvr->netfn == netfn) && (rcvr->cmd == cmd)
&& (rcvr->chans & chans))
return 0;
@@ -3450,7 +3457,8 @@ int ipmi_add_smi(struct module *owner,
/* Look for a hole in the numbers. */
i = 0;
link = &ipmi_interfaces;
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(tintf, &ipmi_interfaces, link) {
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(tintf, &ipmi_interfaces, link,
+ ipmi_interfaces_mutex_held()) {
if (tintf->intf_num != i) {
link = &tintf->link;
break;
--
2.24.1
Hi Amol,
Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
[also build test WARNING on ipmi/for-next arm-soc/for-next v5.5-rc5]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Amol-Grover/drivers-char-ipmi-ipmi_msghandler-Pass-lockdep-expression-to-RCU-lists/20200111-081002
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git 16bb7abc4a6b9defffa294e4dc28383e62a1dbcf
config: x86_64-randconfig-a003-20200109 (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu 5.5.0-12ubuntu1) 5.5.0 20171010
reproduce:
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make ARCH=x86_64
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from include/linux/export.h:43:0,
from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
from include/linux/kernel.h:8,
from include/linux/list.h:9,
from include/linux/module.h:12,
from drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:17:
drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c: In function 'find_cmd_rcvr':
include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
^
include/linux/compiler.h:58:52: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
#define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
^
>> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
^
>> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
^
include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
^
drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
^
include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
^
include/linux/compiler.h:58:61: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
#define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
^
>> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
^
>> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
^
include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
^
drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
^
include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
^
include/linux/compiler.h:69:3: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_value'
(cond) ? \
^
include/linux/compiler.h:56:28: note: in expansion of macro '__trace_if_var'
#define if(cond, ...) if ( __trace_if_var( !!(cond , ## __VA_ARGS__) ) )
^
>> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
^
>> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
^
include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
^
drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
^
vim +/if +263 include/linux/rcupdate.h
632ee200130899 Paul E. McKenney 2010-02-22 254
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 255 /**
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 256 * RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN - emit lockdep splat if specified condition is met
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 257 * @c: condition to check
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 258 * @s: informative message
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 259 */
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 260 #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 261 do { \
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 262 static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 @263 if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 264 __warned = true; \
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 265 lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 266 } \
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 267 } while (0)
f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 268
:::::: The code at line 263 was first introduced by commit
:::::: f78f5b90c4ffa559e400c3919a02236101f29f3f rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()
:::::: TO: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
:::::: CC: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
---
0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:25:58PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> Hi Amol,
>
> Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
>
> [auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
> [also build test WARNING on ipmi/for-next arm-soc/for-next v5.5-rc5]
> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
> improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
> base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
>
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Amol-Grover/drivers-char-ipmi-ipmi_msghandler-Pass-lockdep-expression-to-RCU-lists/20200111-081002
> base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git 16bb7abc4a6b9defffa294e4dc28383e62a1dbcf
> config: x86_64-randconfig-a003-20200109 (attached as .config)
> compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu 5.5.0-12ubuntu1) 5.5.0 20171010
> reproduce:
> # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> make ARCH=x86_64
>
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
>
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> In file included from include/linux/export.h:43:0,
> from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
> from include/linux/kernel.h:8,
> from include/linux/list.h:9,
> from include/linux/module.h:12,
> from drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:17:
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c: In function 'find_cmd_rcvr':
> include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> ^
As mentioned above, RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro is called from
__list_check_rcu with 2 parameters
1. !cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()
2. The message to display incase there is a lockdep warning.
However, if I pass the lockdep checking condition as:
list_for_each_entry_rcu(ptr, list, head, lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held())
this trickles down to __list_check_rcu and then finally to
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN as (here cond is `lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held()`):
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_any_held())
which according to operator precedence (I hopefully got them right)
would always evaluate to true if we are in an RCU read-side critical
section (without a lock), and hence, result in a false-positive lockdep
warning.
This could be easily solved by putting `cond` inside brackets as it is
correctly done in RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro but not in __list_check_rcu
macro. Is that so, or did I miss something?
Secondly, since there is already a condition that checks for RCU
read-side critical section, the extra `rcu_read_lock_held()` we supply
is sort of redundant and can be skipped right?
Thanks
Amol
> include/linux/compiler.h:58:52: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> ^
> >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> ^
> >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> ^
> include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> ^
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> ^
> include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> ^
> include/linux/compiler.h:58:61: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> ^
> >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> ^
> >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> ^
> include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> ^
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> ^
> include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> ^
> include/linux/compiler.h:69:3: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_value'
> (cond) ? \
> ^
> include/linux/compiler.h:56:28: note: in expansion of macro '__trace_if_var'
> #define if(cond, ...) if ( __trace_if_var( !!(cond , ## __VA_ARGS__) ) )
> ^
> >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> ^
> >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> ^
> include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> ^
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> ^
>
> vim +/if +263 include/linux/rcupdate.h
>
> 632ee200130899 Paul E. McKenney 2010-02-22 254
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 255 /**
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 256 * RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN - emit lockdep splat if specified condition is met
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 257 * @c: condition to check
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 258 * @s: informative message
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 259 */
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 260 #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 261 do { \
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 262 static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 @263 if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 264 __warned = true; \
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 265 lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 266 } \
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 267 } while (0)
> f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 268
>
> :::::: The code at line 263 was first introduced by commit
> :::::: f78f5b90c4ffa559e400c3919a02236101f29f3f rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()
>
> :::::: TO: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> :::::: CC: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
> https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:30:30AM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:25:58PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > Hi Amol,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> >
> > [auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
> > [also build test WARNING on ipmi/for-next arm-soc/for-next v5.5-rc5]
> > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
> > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
> > base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
> >
> > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Amol-Grover/drivers-char-ipmi-ipmi_msghandler-Pass-lockdep-expression-to-RCU-lists/20200111-081002
> > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git 16bb7abc4a6b9defffa294e4dc28383e62a1dbcf
> > config: x86_64-randconfig-a003-20200109 (attached as .config)
> > compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu 5.5.0-12ubuntu1) 5.5.0 20171010
> > reproduce:
> > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > make ARCH=x86_64
> >
> > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> >
> > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >
> > In file included from include/linux/export.h:43:0,
> > from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
> > from include/linux/kernel.h:8,
> > from include/linux/list.h:9,
> > from include/linux/module.h:12,
> > from drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:17:
> > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c: In function 'find_cmd_rcvr':
> > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > ^
>
> As mentioned above, RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro is called from
> __list_check_rcu with 2 parameters
>
> 1. !cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()
> 2. The message to display incase there is a lockdep warning.
>
>
> However, if I pass the lockdep checking condition as:
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(ptr, list, head, lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held())
Right, given the _rcu() suffix on the command, the rcu_read_lock_held()
is implied.
> this trickles down to __list_check_rcu and then finally to
> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN as (here cond is `lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held()`):
>
> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_any_held())
>
> which according to operator precedence (I hopefully got them right)
> would always evaluate to true if we are in an RCU read-side critical
> section (without a lock), and hence, result in a false-positive lockdep
> warning.
It looks that way to me. But why not actually try it out? After all,
only the running system knows for sure. And there might be some trick
that we are both missing.
> This could be easily solved by putting `cond` inside brackets as it is
> correctly done in RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro but not in __list_check_rcu
> macro. Is that so, or did I miss something?
Again, that looks correct to me, but please check.
> Secondly, since there is already a condition that checks for RCU
> read-side critical section, the extra `rcu_read_lock_held()` we supply
> is sort of redundant and can be skipped right?
Yes, the general rule is that if the primitives ends with _rcu(), any
lockdep condition will be in addition to rcu_read_lock_any_held().
So you should not need to pass RCU read-side lockdep expressions to
primitives whose names end in _rcu..
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks
> Amol
>
> > include/linux/compiler.h:58:52: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > ^
> > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > ^
> > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > ^
> > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > ^
> > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > ^
> > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > ^
> > include/linux/compiler.h:58:61: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > ^
> > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > ^
> > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > ^
> > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > ^
> > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > ^
> > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > ^
> > include/linux/compiler.h:69:3: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_value'
> > (cond) ? \
> > ^
> > include/linux/compiler.h:56:28: note: in expansion of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > #define if(cond, ...) if ( __trace_if_var( !!(cond , ## __VA_ARGS__) ) )
> > ^
> > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > ^
> > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > ^
> > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > ^
> > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > ^
> >
> > vim +/if +263 include/linux/rcupdate.h
> >
> > 632ee200130899 Paul E. McKenney 2010-02-22 254
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 255 /**
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 256 * RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN - emit lockdep splat if specified condition is met
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 257 * @c: condition to check
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 258 * @s: informative message
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 259 */
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 260 #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 261 do { \
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 262 static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 @263 if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 264 __warned = true; \
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 265 lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 266 } \
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 267 } while (0)
> > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 268
> >
> > :::::: The code at line 263 was first introduced by commit
> > :::::: f78f5b90c4ffa559e400c3919a02236101f29f3f rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()
> >
> > :::::: TO: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > :::::: CC: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> >
> > ---
> > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
> > https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
>
>
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:58:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:30:30AM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:25:58PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > Hi Amol,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> > >
> > > [auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
> > > [also build test WARNING on ipmi/for-next arm-soc/for-next v5.5-rc5]
> > > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
> > > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
> > > base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
> > >
> > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Amol-Grover/drivers-char-ipmi-ipmi_msghandler-Pass-lockdep-expression-to-RCU-lists/20200111-081002
> > > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git 16bb7abc4a6b9defffa294e4dc28383e62a1dbcf
> > > config: x86_64-randconfig-a003-20200109 (attached as .config)
> > > compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu 5.5.0-12ubuntu1) 5.5.0 20171010
> > > reproduce:
> > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > make ARCH=x86_64
> > >
> > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > >
> > > In file included from include/linux/export.h:43:0,
> > > from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
> > > from include/linux/kernel.h:8,
> > > from include/linux/list.h:9,
> > > from include/linux/module.h:12,
> > > from drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:17:
> > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c: In function 'find_cmd_rcvr':
> > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > ^
> >
> > As mentioned above, RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro is called from
> > __list_check_rcu with 2 parameters
> >
> > 1. !cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()
> > 2. The message to display incase there is a lockdep warning.
> >
> >
> > However, if I pass the lockdep checking condition as:
> >
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(ptr, list, head, lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held())
>
> Right, given the _rcu() suffix on the command, the rcu_read_lock_held()
> is implied.
>
> > this trickles down to __list_check_rcu and then finally to
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN as (here cond is `lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held()`):
> >
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_any_held())
> >
> > which according to operator precedence (I hopefully got them right)
> > would always evaluate to true if we are in an RCU read-side critical
> > section (without a lock), and hence, result in a false-positive lockdep
> > warning.
>
> It looks that way to me. But why not actually try it out? After all,
> only the running system knows for sure. And there might be some trick
> that we are both missing.
>
I just tested this, here are the results:
Case 1: Using`lockdep_is_held() || rcu_read_lock_held()`
lock RCU RSCS Splat? Actual
Y Y N N
Y N N N
N Y Y N <=
N N Y Y
Similar for
Case 2: Using `rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held()`
Case 3: Consider 2 locks (outside rcu_read_lock())
`lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2)`
lock1 lock2 Splat? Actual
Y Y N* N
Y N N N
N Y Y N <=
N N Y Y
This too proves the hypothesis (I'd like to call that).
*However, this shows an interesting result. When both lock1 and lock2
are held, according to the hypothesis, a splat should've occured, since
the check condition (albeit faulty atm) would be:
`!lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2) && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()`
=> `!T || T && !F`
=> `F || T && T`
=> `F || T`
=> `T`
However, there was no splat. Which led me to investigate further and I
found out:
1. `rcu_read_lock_any_held()` always returns 1 even if it is outside RCU
read-side CS.
2. `rcu_read_lock_held()` seems OK, returns 1 when inside and 0 when
outside
The kernel is compiled with
PROVE_RCU=y
PROVE_RCU_LIST=y
Any thoughts on this? Is this intended? And should I send-in the patch
for the first problem?
Thanks
Amol
> > This could be easily solved by putting `cond` inside brackets as it is
> > correctly done in RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro but not in __list_check_rcu
> > macro. Is that so, or did I miss something?
>
> Again, that looks correct to me, but please check.
>
> > Secondly, since there is already a condition that checks for RCU
> > read-side critical section, the extra `rcu_read_lock_held()` we supply
> > is sort of redundant and can be skipped right?
>
> Yes, the general rule is that if the primitives ends with _rcu(), any
> lockdep condition will be in addition to rcu_read_lock_any_held().
> So you should not need to pass RCU read-side lockdep expressions to
> primitives whose names end in _rcu..
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Thanks
> > Amol
> >
> > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:52: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > ^
> > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > ^
> > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > ^
> > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:61: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > ^
> > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > ^
> > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > ^
> > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/compiler.h:69:3: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_value'
> > > (cond) ? \
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/compiler.h:56:28: note: in expansion of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > #define if(cond, ...) if ( __trace_if_var( !!(cond , ## __VA_ARGS__) ) )
> > > ^
> > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > ^
> > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > ^
> > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > ^
> > >
> > > vim +/if +263 include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > >
> > > 632ee200130899 Paul E. McKenney 2010-02-22 254
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 255 /**
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 256 * RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN - emit lockdep splat if specified condition is met
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 257 * @c: condition to check
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 258 * @s: informative message
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 259 */
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 260 #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 261 do { \
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 262 static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 @263 if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 264 __warned = true; \
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 265 lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 266 } \
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 267 } while (0)
> > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 268
> > >
> > > :::::: The code at line 263 was first introduced by commit
> > > :::::: f78f5b90c4ffa559e400c3919a02236101f29f3f rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()
> > >
> > > :::::: TO: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > > :::::: CC: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
> > > https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
> >
> >
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:06:53PM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:58:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:30:30AM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:25:58PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > > Hi Amol,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> > > >
> > > > [auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
> > > > [also build test WARNING on ipmi/for-next arm-soc/for-next v5.5-rc5]
> > > > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
> > > > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
> > > > base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
> > > >
> > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Amol-Grover/drivers-char-ipmi-ipmi_msghandler-Pass-lockdep-expression-to-RCU-lists/20200111-081002
> > > > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git 16bb7abc4a6b9defffa294e4dc28383e62a1dbcf
> > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-a003-20200109 (attached as .config)
> > > > compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu 5.5.0-12ubuntu1) 5.5.0 20171010
> > > > reproduce:
> > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > > make ARCH=x86_64
> > > >
> > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > >
> > > > In file included from include/linux/export.h:43:0,
> > > > from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
> > > > from include/linux/kernel.h:8,
> > > > from include/linux/list.h:9,
> > > > from include/linux/module.h:12,
> > > > from drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:17:
> > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c: In function 'find_cmd_rcvr':
> > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > ^
> > >
> > > As mentioned above, RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro is called from
> > > __list_check_rcu with 2 parameters
> > >
> > > 1. !cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()
> > > 2. The message to display incase there is a lockdep warning.
> > >
> > >
> > > However, if I pass the lockdep checking condition as:
> > >
> > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(ptr, list, head, lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held())
> >
> > Right, given the _rcu() suffix on the command, the rcu_read_lock_held()
> > is implied.
> >
> > > this trickles down to __list_check_rcu and then finally to
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN as (here cond is `lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held()`):
> > >
> > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_any_held())
> > >
> > > which according to operator precedence (I hopefully got them right)
> > > would always evaluate to true if we are in an RCU read-side critical
> > > section (without a lock), and hence, result in a false-positive lockdep
> > > warning.
> >
> > It looks that way to me. But why not actually try it out? After all,
> > only the running system knows for sure. And there might be some trick
> > that we are both missing.
> >
>
> I just tested this, here are the results:
>
> Case 1: Using`lockdep_is_held() || rcu_read_lock_held()`
>
> lock RCU RSCS Splat? Actual
> Y Y N N
> Y N N N
> N Y Y N <=
> N N Y Y
>
> Similar for
> Case 2: Using `rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held()`
>
> Case 3: Consider 2 locks (outside rcu_read_lock())
> `lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2)`
>
> lock1 lock2 Splat? Actual
> Y Y N* N
> Y N N N
> N Y Y N <=
> N N Y Y
>
> This too proves the hypothesis (I'd like to call that).
Very good!
> *However, this shows an interesting result. When both lock1 and lock2
> are held, according to the hypothesis, a splat should've occured, since
> the check condition (albeit faulty atm) would be:
>
> `!lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2) && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()`
> => `!T || T && !F`
> => `F || T && T`
> => `F || T`
> => `T`
> However, there was no splat. Which led me to investigate further and I
> found out:
> 1. `rcu_read_lock_any_held()` always returns 1 even if it is outside RCU
> read-side CS.
> 2. `rcu_read_lock_held()` seems OK, returns 1 when inside and 0 when
> outside
>
> The kernel is compiled with
> PROVE_RCU=y
> PROVE_RCU_LIST=y
Were you within a preempt-disable region, for example, was some other
spinlock held? (A lockdep splat should give you a list of locks held.)
Both of these act as generalized RCU read-side critical sections in
recent kernels.
> Any thoughts on this? Is this intended? And should I send-in the patch
> for the first problem?
Separate patches for the initial problem and fixing the macro argument,
please, if that is what you are asking.
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks
> Amol
>
> > > This could be easily solved by putting `cond` inside brackets as it is
> > > correctly done in RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro but not in __list_check_rcu
> > > macro. Is that so, or did I miss something?
> >
> > Again, that looks correct to me, but please check.
> >
> > > Secondly, since there is already a condition that checks for RCU
> > > read-side critical section, the extra `rcu_read_lock_held()` we supply
> > > is sort of redundant and can be skipped right?
> >
> > Yes, the general rule is that if the primitives ends with _rcu(), any
> > lockdep condition will be in addition to rcu_read_lock_any_held().
> > So you should not need to pass RCU read-side lockdep expressions to
> > primitives whose names end in _rcu..
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > Amol
> > >
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:52: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > > ^
> > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > ^
> > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:61: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > > ^
> > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > ^
> > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h:69:3: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_value'
> > > > (cond) ? \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/compiler.h:56:28: note: in expansion of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > #define if(cond, ...) if ( __trace_if_var( !!(cond , ## __VA_ARGS__) ) )
> > > > ^
> > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > ^
> > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > ^
> > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > ^
> > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > ^
> > > >
> > > > vim +/if +263 include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > >
> > > > 632ee200130899 Paul E. McKenney 2010-02-22 254
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 255 /**
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 256 * RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN - emit lockdep splat if specified condition is met
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 257 * @c: condition to check
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 258 * @s: informative message
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 259 */
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 260 #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 261 do { \
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 262 static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 @263 if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 264 __warned = true; \
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 265 lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 266 } \
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 267 } while (0)
> > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 268
> > > >
> > > > :::::: The code at line 263 was first introduced by commit
> > > > :::::: f78f5b90c4ffa559e400c3919a02236101f29f3f rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()
> > > >
> > > > :::::: TO: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > > > :::::: CC: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
> > > > https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:32:59AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:06:53PM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:58:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:30:30AM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:25:58PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > > > Hi Amol,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> > > > >
> > > > > [auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
> > > > > [also build test WARNING on ipmi/for-next arm-soc/for-next v5.5-rc5]
> > > > > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
> > > > > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
> > > > > base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
> > > > >
> > > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Amol-Grover/drivers-char-ipmi-ipmi_msghandler-Pass-lockdep-expression-to-RCU-lists/20200111-081002
> > > > > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git 16bb7abc4a6b9defffa294e4dc28383e62a1dbcf
> > > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-a003-20200109 (attached as .config)
> > > > > compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu 5.5.0-12ubuntu1) 5.5.0 20171010
> > > > > reproduce:
> > > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > > > make ARCH=x86_64
> > > > >
> > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > > >
> > > > > In file included from include/linux/export.h:43:0,
> > > > > from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
> > > > > from include/linux/kernel.h:8,
> > > > > from include/linux/list.h:9,
> > > > > from include/linux/module.h:12,
> > > > > from drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:17:
> > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c: In function 'find_cmd_rcvr':
> > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > ^
> > > >
> > > > As mentioned above, RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro is called from
> > > > __list_check_rcu with 2 parameters
> > > >
> > > > 1. !cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()
> > > > 2. The message to display incase there is a lockdep warning.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > However, if I pass the lockdep checking condition as:
> > > >
> > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(ptr, list, head, lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held())
> > >
> > > Right, given the _rcu() suffix on the command, the rcu_read_lock_held()
> > > is implied.
> > >
> > > > this trickles down to __list_check_rcu and then finally to
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN as (here cond is `lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held()`):
> > > >
> > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_any_held())
> > > >
> > > > which according to operator precedence (I hopefully got them right)
> > > > would always evaluate to true if we are in an RCU read-side critical
> > > > section (without a lock), and hence, result in a false-positive lockdep
> > > > warning.
> > >
> > > It looks that way to me. But why not actually try it out? After all,
> > > only the running system knows for sure. And there might be some trick
> > > that we are both missing.
> > >
> >
> > I just tested this, here are the results:
> >
> > Case 1: Using`lockdep_is_held() || rcu_read_lock_held()`
> >
> > lock RCU RSCS Splat? Actual
> > Y Y N N
> > Y N N N
> > N Y Y N <=
> > N N Y Y
> >
> > Similar for
> > Case 2: Using `rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held()`
> >
> > Case 3: Consider 2 locks (outside rcu_read_lock())
> > `lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2)`
> >
> > lock1 lock2 Splat? Actual
> > Y Y N* N
> > Y N N N
> > N Y Y N <=
> > N N Y Y
> >
> > This too proves the hypothesis (I'd like to call that).
>
> Very good!
>
> > *However, this shows an interesting result. When both lock1 and lock2
> > are held, according to the hypothesis, a splat should've occured, since
> > the check condition (albeit faulty atm) would be:
> >
> > `!lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2) && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()`
> > => `!T || T && !F`
> > => `F || T && T`
> > => `F || T`
> > => `T`
> > However, there was no splat. Which led me to investigate further and I
> > found out:
> > 1. `rcu_read_lock_any_held()` always returns 1 even if it is outside RCU
> > read-side CS.
> > 2. `rcu_read_lock_held()` seems OK, returns 1 when inside and 0 when
> > outside
> >
> > The kernel is compiled with
> > PROVE_RCU=y
> > PROVE_RCU_LIST=y
>
> Were you within a preempt-disable region, for example, was some other
> spinlock held? (A lockdep splat should give you a list of locks held.)
> Both of these act as generalized RCU read-side critical sections in
> recent kernels.
>
I'm not sure if I was inside a preempt-disable region. I just created a
thread via kthread_run and ran rcu_read_lock_any_held() inside the
thread, I'll investigate further and get back to you. And no-other locks
were held. Here is the splat:
[ 2724.551419] =============================
[ 2724.551420] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
[ 2724.551421] 5.5.0-rc5-next #15 Tainted: G OE
[ 2724.551422] -----------------------------
[ 2724.551423] /home/amolg/git/lockdep_check/main.c:28 RCU-list
traversed in non-reader section!!
[ 2724.551424]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 2724.551425]
rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
[ 2724.551426] no locks held by my_thread/4275.
[ 2724.551426]
stack backtrace:
[ 2724.551428] CPU: 2 PID: 4275 Comm: my_thread Tainted: G OE
5.5.0-rc5-next #15
[ 2724.551429] Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
Z170-D3H/Z170-D3H-CF, BIOS F21 03/06/2017
[ 2724.551430] Call Trace:
[ 2724.551437] dump_stack+0x8f/0xd0
[ 2724.551440] threadfn+0x100/0x105 [main]
[ 2724.551443] ? __kthread_parkme+0x48/0x60
[ 2724.551445] kthread+0xf9/0x130
[ 2724.551447] ? 0xffffffffc00d7000
[ 2724.551448] ? kthread_park+0x90/0x90
[ 2724.551451] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
> > Any thoughts on this? Is this intended? And should I send-in the patch
> > for the first problem?
>
> Separate patches for the initial problem and fixing the macro argument,
> please, if that is what you are asking.
>
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear earlier. By `first problem` I was
referring to the macro argument problem itself.
I think by `initial problem` you mean this patch (drivers/char/ipmi),
right? I'll make sure to send in a separate patch for the macro argument
problem.
Thanks
Amol
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Thanks
> > Amol
> >
> > > > This could be easily solved by putting `cond` inside brackets as it is
> > > > correctly done in RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro but not in __list_check_rcu
> > > > macro. Is that so, or did I miss something?
> > >
> > > Again, that looks correct to me, but please check.
> > >
> > > > Secondly, since there is already a condition that checks for RCU
> > > > read-side critical section, the extra `rcu_read_lock_held()` we supply
> > > > is sort of redundant and can be skipped right?
> > >
> > > Yes, the general rule is that if the primitives ends with _rcu(), any
> > > lockdep condition will be in addition to rcu_read_lock_any_held().
> > > So you should not need to pass RCU read-side lockdep expressions to
> > > primitives whose names end in _rcu..
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Amol
> > > >
> > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:52: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > > > ^
> > > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:61: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > > > ^
> > > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:69:3: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_value'
> > > > > (cond) ? \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:56:28: note: in expansion of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > > #define if(cond, ...) if ( __trace_if_var( !!(cond , ## __VA_ARGS__) ) )
> > > > > ^
> > > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > > ^
> > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > > ^
> > > > >
> > > > > vim +/if +263 include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > >
> > > > > 632ee200130899 Paul E. McKenney 2010-02-22 254
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 255 /**
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 256 * RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN - emit lockdep splat if specified condition is met
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 257 * @c: condition to check
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 258 * @s: informative message
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 259 */
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 260 #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 261 do { \
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 262 static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 @263 if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 264 __warned = true; \
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 265 lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 266 } \
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 267 } while (0)
> > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 268
> > > > >
> > > > > :::::: The code at line 263 was first introduced by commit
> > > > > :::::: f78f5b90c4ffa559e400c3919a02236101f29f3f rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()
> > > > >
> > > > > :::::: TO: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > > > > :::::: CC: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
> > > > > https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
> > > >
> > > >
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 08:24:25AM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:32:59AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:06:53PM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:58:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:30:30AM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:25:58PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Amol,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
> > > > > > [also build test WARNING on ipmi/for-next arm-soc/for-next v5.5-rc5]
> > > > > > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
> > > > > > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
> > > > > > base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Amol-Grover/drivers-char-ipmi-ipmi_msghandler-Pass-lockdep-expression-to-RCU-lists/20200111-081002
> > > > > > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git 16bb7abc4a6b9defffa294e4dc28383e62a1dbcf
> > > > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-a003-20200109 (attached as .config)
> > > > > > compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu 5.5.0-12ubuntu1) 5.5.0 20171010
> > > > > > reproduce:
> > > > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > > > > make ARCH=x86_64
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In file included from include/linux/export.h:43:0,
> > > > > > from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
> > > > > > from include/linux/kernel.h:8,
> > > > > > from include/linux/list.h:9,
> > > > > > from include/linux/module.h:12,
> > > > > > from drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:17:
> > > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c: In function 'find_cmd_rcvr':
> > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > >
> > > > > As mentioned above, RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro is called from
> > > > > __list_check_rcu with 2 parameters
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. !cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()
> > > > > 2. The message to display incase there is a lockdep warning.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > However, if I pass the lockdep checking condition as:
> > > > >
> > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(ptr, list, head, lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held())
> > > >
> > > > Right, given the _rcu() suffix on the command, the rcu_read_lock_held()
> > > > is implied.
> > > >
> > > > > this trickles down to __list_check_rcu and then finally to
> > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN as (here cond is `lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held()`):
> > > > >
> > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_any_held())
> > > > >
> > > > > which according to operator precedence (I hopefully got them right)
> > > > > would always evaluate to true if we are in an RCU read-side critical
> > > > > section (without a lock), and hence, result in a false-positive lockdep
> > > > > warning.
> > > >
> > > > It looks that way to me. But why not actually try it out? After all,
> > > > only the running system knows for sure. And there might be some trick
> > > > that we are both missing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I just tested this, here are the results:
> > >
> > > Case 1: Using`lockdep_is_held() || rcu_read_lock_held()`
> > >
> > > lock RCU RSCS Splat? Actual
> > > Y Y N N
> > > Y N N N
> > > N Y Y N <=
> > > N N Y Y
> > >
> > > Similar for
> > > Case 2: Using `rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held()`
> > >
> > > Case 3: Consider 2 locks (outside rcu_read_lock())
> > > `lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2)`
> > >
> > > lock1 lock2 Splat? Actual
> > > Y Y N* N
> > > Y N N N
> > > N Y Y N <=
> > > N N Y Y
> > >
> > > This too proves the hypothesis (I'd like to call that).
> >
> > Very good!
> >
> > > *However, this shows an interesting result. When both lock1 and lock2
> > > are held, according to the hypothesis, a splat should've occured, since
> > > the check condition (albeit faulty atm) would be:
> > >
> > > `!lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2) && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()`
> > > => `!T || T && !F`
> > > => `F || T && T`
> > > => `F || T`
> > > => `T`
> > > However, there was no splat. Which led me to investigate further and I
> > > found out:
> > > 1. `rcu_read_lock_any_held()` always returns 1 even if it is outside RCU
> > > read-side CS.
> > > 2. `rcu_read_lock_held()` seems OK, returns 1 when inside and 0 when
> > > outside
> > >
> > > The kernel is compiled with
> > > PROVE_RCU=y
> > > PROVE_RCU_LIST=y
> >
> > Were you within a preempt-disable region, for example, was some other
> > spinlock held? (A lockdep splat should give you a list of locks held.)
> > Both of these act as generalized RCU read-side critical sections in
> > recent kernels.
>
> I'm not sure if I was inside a preempt-disable region. I just created a
> thread via kthread_run and ran rcu_read_lock_any_held() inside the
> thread, I'll investigate further and get back to you. And no-other locks
> were held. Here is the splat:
>
> [ 2724.551419] =============================
> [ 2724.551420] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> [ 2724.551421] 5.5.0-rc5-next #15 Tainted: G OE
> [ 2724.551422] -----------------------------
> [ 2724.551423] /home/amolg/git/lockdep_check/main.c:28 RCU-list
> traversed in non-reader section!!
> [ 2724.551424]
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> [ 2724.551425]
> rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> [ 2724.551426] no locks held by my_thread/4275.
> [ 2724.551426]
> stack backtrace:
> [ 2724.551428] CPU: 2 PID: 4275 Comm: my_thread Tainted: G OE
> 5.5.0-rc5-next #15
> [ 2724.551429] Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
> Z170-D3H/Z170-D3H-CF, BIOS F21 03/06/2017
> [ 2724.551430] Call Trace:
> [ 2724.551437] dump_stack+0x8f/0xd0
> [ 2724.551440] threadfn+0x100/0x105 [main]
> [ 2724.551443] ? __kthread_parkme+0x48/0x60
> [ 2724.551445] kthread+0xf9/0x130
> [ 2724.551447] ? 0xffffffffc00d7000
> [ 2724.551448] ? kthread_park+0x90/0x90
> [ 2724.551451] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
Does your .config file by chance contain "CONFIG_PREEMPT=n"?
In that case, pretty much any code not containing a call to schedule() or
a return to userspace is an implicit RCU read-side critical section, which
would mean that this is expected behavior.
> > > Any thoughts on this? Is this intended? And should I send-in the patch
> > > for the first problem?
> >
> > Separate patches for the initial problem and fixing the macro argument,
> > please, if that is what you are asking.
>
> Sorry if I didn't make myself clear earlier. By `first problem` I was
> referring to the macro argument problem itself.
>
> I think by `initial problem` you mean this patch (drivers/char/ipmi),
> right? I'll make sure to send in a separate patch for the macro argument
> problem.
I did indeed mean that, thank you!
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks
> Amol
>
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > Amol
> > >
> > > > > This could be easily solved by putting `cond` inside brackets as it is
> > > > > correctly done in RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro but not in __list_check_rcu
> > > > > macro. Is that so, or did I miss something?
> > > >
> > > > Again, that looks correct to me, but please check.
> > > >
> > > > > Secondly, since there is already a condition that checks for RCU
> > > > > read-side critical section, the extra `rcu_read_lock_held()` we supply
> > > > > is sort of redundant and can be skipped right?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the general rule is that if the primitives ends with _rcu(), any
> > > > lockdep condition will be in addition to rcu_read_lock_any_held().
> > > > So you should not need to pass RCU read-side lockdep expressions to
> > > > primitives whose names end in _rcu..
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Amol
> > > > >
> > > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:52: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:61: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:69:3: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_value'
> > > > > > (cond) ? \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:56:28: note: in expansion of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > > > #define if(cond, ...) if ( __trace_if_var( !!(cond , ## __VA_ARGS__) ) )
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > > > ^
> > > > > >
> > > > > > vim +/if +263 include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 632ee200130899 Paul E. McKenney 2010-02-22 254
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 255 /**
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 256 * RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN - emit lockdep splat if specified condition is met
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 257 * @c: condition to check
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 258 * @s: informative message
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 259 */
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 260 #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 261 do { \
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 262 static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 @263 if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 264 __warned = true; \
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 265 lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 266 } \
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 267 } while (0)
> > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 268
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :::::: The code at line 263 was first introduced by commit
> > > > > > :::::: f78f5b90c4ffa559e400c3919a02236101f29f3f rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :::::: TO: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > > > > > :::::: CC: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
> > > > > > https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:21:32PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 08:24:25AM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:32:59AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:06:53PM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:58:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:30:30AM +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 01:25:58PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Amol,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [auto build test WARNING on char-misc/char-misc-testing]
> > > > > > > [also build test WARNING on ipmi/for-next arm-soc/for-next v5.5-rc5]
> > > > > > > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
> > > > > > > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the
> > > > > > > base tree in git format-patch, please see https://stackoverflow.com/a/37406982]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Amol-Grover/drivers-char-ipmi-ipmi_msghandler-Pass-lockdep-expression-to-RCU-lists/20200111-081002
> > > > > > > base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git 16bb7abc4a6b9defffa294e4dc28383e62a1dbcf
> > > > > > > config: x86_64-randconfig-a003-20200109 (attached as .config)
> > > > > > > compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu 5.5.0-12ubuntu1) 5.5.0 20171010
> > > > > > > reproduce:
> > > > > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> > > > > > > make ARCH=x86_64
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > > > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <[email protected]>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In file included from include/linux/export.h:43:0,
> > > > > > > from include/linux/linkage.h:7,
> > > > > > > from include/linux/kernel.h:8,
> > > > > > > from include/linux/list.h:9,
> > > > > > > from include/linux/module.h:12,
> > > > > > > from drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:17:
> > > > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c: In function 'find_cmd_rcvr':
> > > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As mentioned above, RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro is called from
> > > > > > __list_check_rcu with 2 parameters
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. !cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()
> > > > > > 2. The message to display incase there is a lockdep warning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, if I pass the lockdep checking condition as:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(ptr, list, head, lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held())
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, given the _rcu() suffix on the command, the rcu_read_lock_held()
> > > > > is implied.
> > > > >
> > > > > > this trickles down to __list_check_rcu and then finally to
> > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN as (here cond is `lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held()`):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!lockdep_is_held(&some_lock) || rcu_read_lock_held() && !rcu_read_lock_any_held())
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which according to operator precedence (I hopefully got them right)
> > > > > > would always evaluate to true if we are in an RCU read-side critical
> > > > > > section (without a lock), and hence, result in a false-positive lockdep
> > > > > > warning.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks that way to me. But why not actually try it out? After all,
> > > > > only the running system knows for sure. And there might be some trick
> > > > > that we are both missing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I just tested this, here are the results:
> > > >
> > > > Case 1: Using`lockdep_is_held() || rcu_read_lock_held()`
> > > >
> > > > lock RCU RSCS Splat? Actual
> > > > Y Y N N
> > > > Y N N N
> > > > N Y Y N <=
> > > > N N Y Y
> > > >
> > > > Similar for
> > > > Case 2: Using `rcu_read_lock_held() || lockdep_is_held()`
> > > >
> > > > Case 3: Consider 2 locks (outside rcu_read_lock())
> > > > `lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2)`
> > > >
> > > > lock1 lock2 Splat? Actual
> > > > Y Y N* N
> > > > Y N N N
> > > > N Y Y N <=
> > > > N N Y Y
> > > >
> > > > This too proves the hypothesis (I'd like to call that).
> > >
> > > Very good!
> > >
> > > > *However, this shows an interesting result. When both lock1 and lock2
> > > > are held, according to the hypothesis, a splat should've occured, since
> > > > the check condition (albeit faulty atm) would be:
> > > >
> > > > `!lockdep_is_held(lock1) || lockdep_is_held(lock2) && !rcu_read_lock_any_held()`
> > > > => `!T || T && !F`
> > > > => `F || T && T`
> > > > => `F || T`
> > > > => `T`
> > > > However, there was no splat. Which led me to investigate further and I
> > > > found out:
> > > > 1. `rcu_read_lock_any_held()` always returns 1 even if it is outside RCU
> > > > read-side CS.
> > > > 2. `rcu_read_lock_held()` seems OK, returns 1 when inside and 0 when
> > > > outside
> > > >
> > > > The kernel is compiled with
> > > > PROVE_RCU=y
> > > > PROVE_RCU_LIST=y
> > >
> > > Were you within a preempt-disable region, for example, was some other
> > > spinlock held? (A lockdep splat should give you a list of locks held.)
> > > Both of these act as generalized RCU read-side critical sections in
> > > recent kernels.
> >
> > I'm not sure if I was inside a preempt-disable region. I just created a
> > thread via kthread_run and ran rcu_read_lock_any_held() inside the
> > thread, I'll investigate further and get back to you. And no-other locks
> > were held. Here is the splat:
> >
> > [ 2724.551419] =============================
> > [ 2724.551420] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > [ 2724.551421] 5.5.0-rc5-next #15 Tainted: G OE
> > [ 2724.551422] -----------------------------
> > [ 2724.551423] /home/amolg/git/lockdep_check/main.c:28 RCU-list
> > traversed in non-reader section!!
> > [ 2724.551424]
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> > [ 2724.551425]
> > rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> > [ 2724.551426] no locks held by my_thread/4275.
> > [ 2724.551426]
> > stack backtrace:
> > [ 2724.551428] CPU: 2 PID: 4275 Comm: my_thread Tainted: G OE
> > 5.5.0-rc5-next #15
> > [ 2724.551429] Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
> > Z170-D3H/Z170-D3H-CF, BIOS F21 03/06/2017
> > [ 2724.551430] Call Trace:
> > [ 2724.551437] dump_stack+0x8f/0xd0
> > [ 2724.551440] threadfn+0x100/0x105 [main]
> > [ 2724.551443] ? __kthread_parkme+0x48/0x60
> > [ 2724.551445] kthread+0xf9/0x130
> > [ 2724.551447] ? 0xffffffffc00d7000
> > [ 2724.551448] ? kthread_park+0x90/0x90
> > [ 2724.551451] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
>
> Does your .config file by chance contain "CONFIG_PREEMPT=n"?
>
Indeed, CONFIG_PREEMPT was not set in my config, hence, the different
results.
> In that case, pretty much any code not containing a call to schedule() or
> a return to userspace is an implicit RCU read-side critical section, which
> would mean that this is expected behavior.
>
Got it, thank you!
Thanks
Amol
> > > > Any thoughts on this? Is this intended? And should I send-in the patch
> > > > for the first problem?
> > >
> > > Separate patches for the initial problem and fixing the macro argument,
> > > please, if that is what you are asking.
> >
> > Sorry if I didn't make myself clear earlier. By `first problem` I was
> > referring to the macro argument problem itself.
> >
> > I think by `initial problem` you mean this patch (drivers/char/ipmi),
> > right? I'll make sure to send in a separate patch for the macro argument
> > problem.
>
> I did indeed mean that, thank you!
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > Thanks
> > Amol
> >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Amol
> > > >
> > > > > > This could be easily solved by putting `cond` inside brackets as it is
> > > > > > correctly done in RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN macro but not in __list_check_rcu
> > > > > > macro. Is that so, or did I miss something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, that looks correct to me, but please check.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Secondly, since there is already a condition that checks for RCU
> > > > > > read-side critical section, the extra `rcu_read_lock_held()` we supply
> > > > > > is sort of redundant and can be skipped right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the general rule is that if the primitives ends with _rcu(), any
> > > > > lockdep condition will be in addition to rcu_read_lock_any_held().
> > > > > So you should not need to pass RCU read-side lockdep expressions to
> > > > > primitives whose names end in _rcu..
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Amol
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:52: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > > > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:58:61: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > > > > #define __trace_if_var(cond) (__builtin_constant_p(cond) ? (cond) : __trace_if_value(cond))
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:53:25: warning: suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||' [-Wparentheses]
> > > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:69:3: note: in definition of macro '__trace_if_value'
> > > > > > > (cond) ? \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > include/linux/compiler.h:56:28: note: in expansion of macro '__trace_if_var'
> > > > > > > #define if(cond, ...) if ( __trace_if_var( !!(cond , ## __VA_ARGS__) ) )
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > >> include/linux/rcupdate.h:263:3: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
> > > > > > > if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > >> include/linux/rculist.h:53:2: note: in expansion of macro 'RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN'
> > > > > > > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > include/linux/rculist.h:371:7: note: in expansion of macro '__list_check_rcu'
> > > > > > > for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c:1607:2: note: in expansion of macro 'list_for_each_entry_rcu'
> > > > > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(rcvr, &intf->cmd_rcvrs, link,
> > > > > > > ^
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > vim +/if +263 include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 632ee200130899 Paul E. McKenney 2010-02-22 254
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 255 /**
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 256 * RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN - emit lockdep splat if specified condition is met
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 257 * @c: condition to check
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 258 * @s: informative message
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 259 */
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 260 #define RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(c, s) \
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 261 do { \
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 262 static bool __section(.data.unlikely) __warned; \
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 @263 if (debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() && !__warned && (c)) { \
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 264 __warned = true; \
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 265 lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__, s); \
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 266 } \
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 267 } while (0)
> > > > > > > f78f5b90c4ffa5 Paul E. McKenney 2015-06-18 268
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :::::: The code at line 263 was first introduced by commit
> > > > > > > :::::: f78f5b90c4ffa559e400c3919a02236101f29f3f rcu: Rename rcu_lockdep_assert() to RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN()
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > :::::: TO: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > :::::: CC: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
> > > > > > > https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
> > > > > >
> > > > > >