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:   Fri, 2 Oct 2020 21:35:36 +0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net, Qian Cai <cai@redhat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep null-ptr-deref
Message-ID: <20201002133536.GF17810@debian-boqun.qqnc3lrjykvubdpftowmye0fmh.lx.internal.cloudapp.net>
References: <5fd046115645daa00f8841f5467da4c4d960ca92.camel@redhat.com>
 <20200929230823.GC17810@debian-boqun.qqnc3lrjykvubdpftowmye0fmh.lx.internal.cloudapp.net>
 <20200930091610.GV2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200930094937.GE2651@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200930121818.GD17810@debian-boqun.qqnc3lrjykvubdpftowmye0fmh.lx.internal.cloudapp.net>
 <20200930190228.GL2611@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20201002123602.GE17810@debian-boqun.qqnc3lrjykvubdpftowmye0fmh.lx.internal.cloudapp.net>
 <20201002130929.GW2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201002130929.GW2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:09:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 08:36:02PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> 
> > But what if f2() is called with interrupt disabled? Or f2() disables
> > interrupt inside the function, like:
> > 
> > 	void f2(...)
> > 	{
> > 		local_irq_disable();
> > 		spin_lock(&B);
> > 		g(...);
> > 		...
> > 		local_irq_enable();
> > 	}
> > 
> > In this case, there wouldn't be any LOCK_ENABLED_*_READ usage for
> > rwlock_t A. As a result, we won't see it in the lockdep splat.
> 
> Hurm, fair enough. So just to make sure, you're arguing for:
> 
> -#define LOCK_TRACE_STATES              (XXX_LOCK_USAGE_STATES*4 + 1)
> +#define LOCK_TRACE_STATES              (XXX_LOCK_USAGE_STATES*4 + 2)
> 
> On top of my earlier patch, right?

Yep. Thanks ;-)

Regards,
Boqun