Received: by 2002:a25:8b91:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp7328940ybl; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:40:13 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyDwOVGDa/eQWycW1wLJYXT0c9BC8scJy8PNN1J/lmUDzwoboaMkR0qqf9KNQsTpFfYFk6p X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1e37:: with SMTP id t23mr622319otr.16.1579149613560; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:40:13 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1579149613; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=qF0ATQcfyFxDJF0vtzjsvpv9aQcs6F0RYJg5CizpAS/5WA+lldZj2Yz3vwZUKWdmDg IUEAhr4PsvKgQSWazrQjJpkNF2PHXoxhEsGNeBr/xbjlFmYuhf6Ia37NsOQHT0RqND0/ JVtwrO30t3xi2QtNUPTtec7ukclQOVpjHD4GZnD7u2os7LvqtTFN/j2WW+AfRv18d81w vGIZHOkcHVmu8ommxBN/insNP4OMTrQ02ycXPIhHupI6lFio6A5xCNe32hB/Ob0epZX5 PJaeFuS01LlzzrHOfFDZFNM7yzquDU570x0QV6NBPIaHpNo77ESNK/9qy38mdrsB88d5 XelQ== 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:reply-to:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=jdBLgqCHgzH21dBv8ttQcXnL9hj84WOc4f/YvgTC5Jw=; b=PV/Is6cLM2symMbcJWf7Uhyo2LVx+jk1Vn0Ibv0JhqMaOk6aoD9WWhyfJNEP8U3HqH G2IlMcYhPU3fEJMbfx5ZbY/agxQZPBl2Lc345NwgCGVTyvaOAbaNJbs4+oILP/kRtbs0 isOE9thd9AUaDulR7YVKR2XvD9FVwtGiPOlnSKWYeXj7W5AdaQ72RxGkQfHd6EuA7CkX PQlzabaItIJ2140y8Py7AN80bEB75Zxqja3QzRydQUITyyc5+xfFUzG/5tpGPWgAcAWF R0JDgd+UTIw/leP8mGtQkBihA37En0lR/xQ0wBbW1EHB2aGGrZNoyFnhCpcx0jtv3JKl /QcQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=Ey8KVCFa; 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=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d5si10789774oij.139.2020.01.15.20.40.01; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:40:13 -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=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=Ey8KVCFa; 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=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729538AbgAPDVf (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:21:35 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:58658 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726552AbgAPDVe (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2020 22:21:34 -0500 Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (50-39-105-78.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.105.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36F22222C3; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 03:21:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1579144893; bh=N4XWxB90Ifm0f2Noi8i+da0SgXliAnKt4l9NuCRS4Z8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ey8KVCFaoYWTVcCTPHNaSn7mE7Na8d0rBX0m5NrMM3nGC4GIGBWk0RgS64gqZrmFp +SqkH57qNZpJI5a0pVufVeH3uslkVeW+vED0ktB2GTCq0KJ8nzENmk/ODhT0bRxSHJ DRF2GSSc2lYwAaBEEfBDv1bAlxVfZ48fjDXlZLIs= Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D437735227B5; Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:21:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:21:32 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Amol Grover 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: <20200116032132.GT2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <20200110164709.26741-1-frextrite@gmail.com> <202001121358.YVbD4V9l%lkp@intel.com> <20200114030030.GB2559@workstation-portable> <20200114175828.GR2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200115123653.GA20601@workstation-portable> <20200115193259.GC2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200116025425.GC8329@workstation-portable> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200116025425.GC8329@workstation-portable> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > :::::: 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 > > > > > > > > > >