Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 09:54:57 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: improve current->(hard|soft)irqs_enabled
 synchronisation with actual irq state
To:     peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
References: <20200723105615.1268126-1-npiggin@gmail.com>
        <20200807111126.GI2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <1597220073.mbvcty6ghk.astroid@bobo.none>
        <20200812103530.GL2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <1597735273.s0usqkrlsk.astroid@bobo.none>
        <20200818154143.GT2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200818154143.GT2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <1597793862.l8c4pmmzpq.astroid@bobo.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Excerpts from peterz@infradead.org's message of August 19, 2020 1:41 am:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:22:33PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Excerpts from peterz@infradead.org's message of August 12, 2020 8:35 pm:
>> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 06:18:28PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> >> Excerpts from peterz@infradead.org's message of August 7, 2020 9:11 p=
m:
>> >> >=20
>> >> > What's wrong with something like this?
>> >> >=20
>> >> > AFAICT there's no reason to actually try and add IRQ tracing here, =
it's
>> >> > just a hand full of instructions at the most.
>> >>=20
>> >> Because we may want to use that in other places as well, so it would
>> >> be nice to have tracing.
>> >>=20
>> >> Hmm... also, I thought NMI context was free to call local_irq_save/re=
store
>> >> anyway so the bug would still be there in those cases?
>> >=20
>> > NMI code has in_nmi() true, in which case the IRQ tracing is disabled
>> > (except for x86 which has CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_NMI).
>> >=20
>>=20
>> That doesn't help. It doesn't fix the lockdep irq state going out of
>> synch with the actual irq state. The code which triggered this with the
>> special powerpc irq disable has in_nmi() true as well.
>=20
> Urgh, you're talking about using lockdep_assert_irqs*() from NMI
> context?
>=20
> If not, I'm afraid I might've lost the plot a little on what exact
> failure case we're talking about.
>=20

Hm, I may have been a bit confused actually. Since your Fix=20
TRACE_IRQFLAGS vs NMIs patch it might now work.

I'm worried powerpc disables trace irqs trace_hardirqs_off()
before nmi_enter() might still be a problem, but not sure
actually. Alexey did you end up re-testing with Peter's patch
or current upstream?

Thanks,
Nick