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;
Sender: neeraju=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org ACF76C433D3
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: update: Check rcu_bh_lock_map state in
 rcu_read_lock_bh_held
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Cc:     josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, urezki@gmail.com, frederic@kernel.org
References: <1624363521-19702-1-git-send-email-neeraju@codeaurora.org>
 <20210622175855.GE4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
From:   Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <61bed875-5ebf-03d8-58ea-e9263c534201@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:38:09 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210622175855.GE4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 6/22/2021 11:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:35:21PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> In addition to irq and softirq state, check rcu_bh_lock_map
>> state, to decide whether RCU bh lock is held.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> 
> My initial reaction was that "in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()" covers
> it because rcu_read_lock_bh() disables BH.  But you are right that it
> does seem a bit silly to ignore lockdep.
> 
> So would it also make sense to have a WARN_ON_ONCE() if lockdep claims
> we are under rcu_read_lock_bh() protection, but "in_softirq() ||
> irqs_disabled()" think otherwise?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 

After thinking more on this, looks like one intention of not
having lockdep check here was to catch scenarios where some code enables 
bh after doing rcu_read_lock_bh(), as is mentioned in the comment above 
rcu_read_lock_bh_held():

   Note that if someone uses
   rcu_read_lock_bh(), but then later enables BH, lockdep (if enabled)
   will show the situation.  This is useful for debug checks in functions
   that require that they be called within an RCU read-side critical
   section.

Client users seem to be doing lockdep checks on returned value:
drivers/net/wireguard/peer.c
    RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_bh_held(),

Similarly, any rcu_dereference_check(..., rcu_read_lock_bh_held()) usage 
also triggers warning, if bh is enabled, inside rcu_read_lock_bh()
section.

So, using 'in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()' condition looks to be 
sufficient condition, to mark all read lock bh regions and adding '|| 
lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)' to this condition does not seem to fit
well with the RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_bh_held()) and 
rcu_dereference_check(..., rcu_read_lock_bh_held()) calls, if we hit
the scenario, where bh lockmap state (shows bh lock acquired) conflicts 
with the softirq/irq state .


Thanks
Neeraj

>> ---
>>   kernel/rcu/update.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
>> index c21b38c..d416f1c 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
>> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void)
>>   
>>   	if (rcu_read_lock_held_common(&ret))
>>   		return ret;
>> -	return in_softirq() || irqs_disabled();
>> +	return lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) || in_softirq() || irqs_disabled();
>>   }
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held);
>>   
>> -- 
>> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
>> hosted by The Linux Foundation
>>

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation