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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YfMa0QgsjCVdRAvJ@latitude> <CAHmME9pb9A4SN6TTjNvvxKqw1L3gXVOX7KKihfEH4AgKGNGZ2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfOqsOiNfURyvFRX@linutronix.de> <CAHmME9qBj2gL=spp3AUEo-Ri4r0KQq-KrR-f6dG++xXQvzcA7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfQXgaAyBBEYSspV@linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <YfQXgaAyBBEYSspV@linutronix.de>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 17:28:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHmME9qhdRbFT26beStH3JYLiE0mpAZz-jp1jJsJdJNZKFpbvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "BUG: Invalid wait context" in invalidate_batched_entropy
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?Q?Jonathan_Neusch=C3=A4fer?= <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Sebastian,

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 5:19 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> Correct. You must not acquire a spinlock_t while holding a
> raw_spinlock_t. This is because on PREEMPT_RT the spinlock_t is a
> sleeping lock while raw_spinlock_t disables preemption/ interrupts and
> sleeping is not possible.
>         Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst
>
> On non-PREEMPT both lock types (spinlock_t & raw_spinlock_t) behave in
> the same way but lockdep can tell them apart with
> CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y and show code that is problematic on RT.

Gotcha. Surely, then, Andy's patch at least goes some of the way
toward fixing this, since it outright _removes_ a spinlock_t. There is
still the other spinlock_t that you want removed, I realize, though
this doesn't appear to be the one from Jonathan's bug report. It
sounds like Andy's patch might be one side of the fix, and your patch
the other?

Jason