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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/2 v2] list_bl: avoid BUG when the list is not locked
To:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Mike Snitzer <msnitzer@redhat.com>, Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>,
        Ilias Tsitsimpis <iliastsi@arrikto.com>, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1911121110430.12815@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
From:   Nikos Tsironis <ntsironis@arrikto.com>
Message-ID: <335dafcb-5e07-63ed-b288-196516170bde@arrikto.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:29:08 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1911121110430.12815@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11/12/19 6:16 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> list_bl would crash with BUG() if we used it without locking. dm-snapshot 
> uses its own locking on realtime kernels (it can't use list_bl because 
> list_bl uses raw spinlock and dm-snapshot takes other non-raw spinlocks 
> while holding bl_lock).
> 
> To avoid this BUG, we must set LIST_BL_LOCKMASK = 0.
> 
> This patch is intended only for the realtime kernel patchset, not for the 
> upstream kernel.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> 
> Index: linux-rt-devel/include/linux/list_bl.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-rt-devel.orig/include/linux/list_bl.h	2019-11-07 14:01:51.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-rt-devel/include/linux/list_bl.h	2019-11-08 10:12:49.000000000 +0100
> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
>   * some fast and compact auxiliary data.
>   */
>  
> -#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
> +#if (defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)) && !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE)
>  #define LIST_BL_LOCKMASK	1UL
>  #else
>  #define LIST_BL_LOCKMASK	0UL
> @@ -161,9 +161,6 @@ static inline void hlist_bl_lock(struct
>  	bit_spin_lock(0, (unsigned long *)b);
>  #else
>  	raw_spin_lock(&b->lock);
> -#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
> -	__set_bit(0, (unsigned long *)b);
> -#endif
>  #endif
>  }
>  

Hi Mikulas,

I think removing __set_bit()/__clear_bit() breaks hlist_bl_is_locked(),
which is used by the RCU variant of list_bl.

Nikos

> @@ -172,9 +169,6 @@ static inline void hlist_bl_unlock(struc
>  #ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE
>  	__bit_spin_unlock(0, (unsigned long *)b);
>  #else
> -#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK)
> -	__clear_bit(0, (unsigned long *)b);
> -#endif
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
>  #endif
>  }
>