Received: by 2002:a25:8b91:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp6430634ybl; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 04:38:12 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyN/fKZZLsQAwOwhjSF1uhlRNObcj26KhonOKycdQGYJQunLT/iz5zdgH3xBQnK7gkoel3o X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7501:: with SMTP id r1mr2626234otk.196.1579091892746; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 04:38:12 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1579091892; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=NpKixdLpkWMZ+5e8i7SmrTZdO09NinZ8MzIPPguY1PU1eX2biKgXA9IXYsbassrBHE OSuJD/UGQepSuHxCJO2XPONQ79X1vU66azKIUQ4XelXttyqLYOFp3Kd12z5m7cbUA5NP zQj/wJrQbIvao6QSrLBP4meEdaQQUCBoOHVfSIVGD1koWFqgaLX1tn131P1iY7VavkEO mOQcP1YOsPmHbRfMxasNjXc17D1x9v0qlfA4B0lGpvmjMdhMAfgiCSMJJIOUqd4NG6L9 MsNMBUop21faXrniXahL/zT9/3bnBTt+Ki9oEJu4UKokLT57HhJuQuoAVyPGxBoHNcBO DkqQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=LPZeah86TqCcRk0IQLjv+gJuPiExmkzZ76B4+3CP1fo=; b=JgbSc1jyl98VvjdNd9E/UNTX+uJUPN4DJRtbfjVH+cTp12edwVQ2rC8+hSH/XTTzXF pSpk52KtuK0enV80K+x4Kn0FVdOQjdM7G3EikWjiSdSdieb90ER6zJNhHh8Ggt5GOGWj oCEhInhjh3HqeHlNOKP+SB3+BKKPE+fSQlGkGP0P3cmIrhFj7iHoryJQCAETtbewwJTS met+iHfy8m1x0W8DLSlsgE6RBTOiehEvzNUz0Hlubldpu4AwXuF6AD+Gv6s8vETWpB8j 9wWrSUSjV9rb+jsPbB7SHx034AohcsRj8bw1954aN+J+sfW+7lpEWyD4omkV2YzD6Agi Bz1Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b="rz2nORF/"; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c24si11052943otf.14.2020.01.15.04.37.58; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 04:38:12 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b="rz2nORF/"; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728946AbgAOMhB (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:37:01 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f65.google.com ([209.85.216.65]:35107 "EHLO mail-pj1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726071AbgAOMhB (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:37:01 -0500 Received: by mail-pj1-f65.google.com with SMTP id s7so7667644pjc.0 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 04:37:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=LPZeah86TqCcRk0IQLjv+gJuPiExmkzZ76B4+3CP1fo=; b=rz2nORF/wWhRxDGpNQKA3o/R+ur66SU7obM3WNaciNLBm+vxJ12EtmCZz8nye/r1tr LOSO/teMaMj8OHxTh1OrDUtR4qcrbs+OsPjUrbHVTdhCNlXtGdMu7AeEHJomONp1HaB/ EjJXvD3w1/zyaqWtVH+NyrAviNpqbM6cdWcq/tQ3LgOKMoc3YYMvP6C+i8bGeJCCZq3R LHmMVlBWKIGxdcm0sFOWd4aHOuuyD/GbChW0S5Lv+CCglZ0omL4cbODUCVf7UJaGcmlL 7uhijTXEp722dqt8DWPyua00yqR5g5pdt+zk8LtntKNLKmIPQNhH3YEtXtyRhsZhCtoq 8Diw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=LPZeah86TqCcRk0IQLjv+gJuPiExmkzZ76B4+3CP1fo=; b=Ddv7xBr952qOGNo017cuS+xwMRuu0Wq6recHLKumCXijNEq8akI87UVH6Qk1PFIV+P 9vVHhi9l6ZhQK2Nt5lwflIN6sUHbFe4JOTdEJEWltVsfXcy89VEr1HfYfwFcOG/1vBVM waP3FnI1h73MbS9C/I2qRVbuuFInYQMMjH3izl1yntrTg+MhdhaNfc/CfLrbHJh5k4eB SmOq7Y3DPXHoABFjYZHorjqmS8o27AMnLlfc3pRyNnJiMz1vPrW4v5FsaTjRejZqgD8P X8xx8rLt2BFfp1C/OMHzebdvfPOtWkIn0mCYiP4KglEm8BS+UYLVwdJtzrhuOIJWK2Aq ZZgg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXu8orgTgrxL08PB9mL5bSXUAwKvERRM1AWC9FfOV5rLDXvwfo0 SUjyVb7yiirFk4zzD2NfftY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7781:: with SMTP id v1mr19909377pjk.108.1579091820098; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 04:37:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from workstation-portable ([103.211.17.106]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a15sm22284575pfh.169.2020.01.15.04.36.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 04:36:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:06:53 +0530 From: Amol Grover To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: kbuild test robot , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, Corey Minyard , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Joel Fernandes , Madhuparna Bhowmik Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers: char: ipmi: ipmi_msghandler: Pass lockdep expression to RCU lists Message-ID: <20200115123653.GA20601@workstation-portable> References: <20200110164709.26741-1-frextrite@gmail.com> <202001121358.YVbD4V9l%lkp@intel.com> <20200114030030.GB2559@workstation-portable> <20200114175828.GR2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200114175828.GR2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > > > 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 > > > :::::: CC: Paul E. McKenney > > > > > > --- > > > 0-DAY kernel test infrastructure Open Source Technology Center > > > https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/kbuild-all@lists.01.org Intel Corporation > > > >