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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0000000000007523a60576e80a47@google.com> <CACT4Y+b3AmVQMjPNsPHOXRZS4tNYb6Z9h5-c=1ZwZk0VR-5J5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180928070042.GF3439@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CACT4Y+YFmSmXjs5EMNRPvsR-mLYeAYKypBppYq_M_boTi8a9uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+ZBYYUiJejNbPcZWS+aHehvkgKkTKm0gvuviXGGcirJ5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+bTGp1J9Wn=93LUObdTcWPo2JrChYKF-1v6aXmtvoQgPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAM_iQpVtcNFeEtW15z_nZoyC1Q-_pCq+UfZ4vYBB3Lb2CMm4Mg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpVtcNFeEtW15z_nZoyC1Q-_pCq+UfZ4vYBB3Lb2CMm4Mg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jan 2020 00:09:24 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMArcTUJ=Nemq=hsEeOzc-hOU4bPOKq_Xa1ECGDk4ceZHzhGVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+aaa6fa4949cc5d9b7b25@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 06:53, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Hi Cong,

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 3:11 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > +Taehee, Cong,
> >
> > In the other thread Taehee mentioned the creation of dynamic keys for
> > net devices that was added recently and that they are subject to some
> > limits.
> > syzkaller creates lots of net devices for isolation (several dozens
> > per test process, but then these can be created and destroyed
> > periodically). I wonder if it's the root cause of the lockdep limits
> > problems?
>
> Very possibly. In current code base, there are 4 lockdep keys
> per netdev:
>
>         struct lock_class_key   qdisc_tx_busylock_key;
>         struct lock_class_key   qdisc_running_key;
>         struct lock_class_key   qdisc_xmit_lock_key;
>         struct lock_class_key   addr_list_lock_key;
>
> so the number of lockdep keys is at least 4x number of network
> devices.
>
> I think only addr_list_lock_key is necessary as it has a nested
> locking use case, all the rest are not. Taehee, do you agree?
>
> I plan to remove at least qdisc_xmit_lock_key for net-next
> after the fix for net gets merged.
>

Yes, I fully agree with this.
If we calculate the subclass for lock_nested() very well, I think we
might use static lockdep key for addr_list_lock_key too. I think
"dev->upper_level" and "dev->lower_level" might be used as subclass.
These values are updated recursively in master/nomaster operation.

Thank you
Taehee Yoo

> Thanks!