Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 4 Jun 2018 20:16:10 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15a/18] rhashtables: add lockdep tracking to bucket
 bit-spin-locks.
Message-ID: <20180604181609.sssd4ao6wfwj3il6@netronome.com>
References: <152782754287.30340.4395718227884933670.stgit@noble>
 <152782824984.30340.1634082820568216846.stgit@noble>
 <20180602050322.liesw324q5kawcue@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <9bea77df-e7db-677a-31b2-710dc6d956ee@gmail.com>
 <871sdnqty4.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
 <87po17p8jd.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87po17p8jd.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 12:52:54PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> 
> Native bit_spin_locks are not tracked by lockdep.
> 
> The bit_spin_locks used for rhashtable buckets are local
> to the rhashtable implementation, so there is little opportunity
> for the sort of misuse that lockdep might detect.
> However locks are held while a hash function or compare
> function is called, and if one of these took a lock,
> a misbehaviour is possible.
> 
> As it is quite easy to add lockdep support this unlikely
> possibility see to be enough justification.

nit: s/see/seems/

> 
> So create a lockdep class for bucket bit_spin_lock as attach
> through a lockdep_map in each bucket_table.
> 
> With the 'nested' annotation in rhashtable_rehash_one(), lockdep
> correctly reports a possible problem as this lock it taken
> while another bucket lock (in another table) is held.  This
> confirms that the added support works.
> With the correct nested annotation in place, lockdep reports
> no problems.
> 
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>