Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b6c1a8ac-c691-a84d-d3a1-f99984d32f06@samsung.com>
 <87fslyv6y3.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> <51dfc4a0-f6cf-092f-109f-a04eeb240655@samsung.com>
 <87k0b6blz2.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> <32bba8f8-dec7-78aa-f2e5-f62928412eda@samsung.com>
 <87y1zkkrjy.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> <CAMuHMdVmoj3Tqz65VmSuVL2no4+bGC=qdB8LWoB=vyASf9vS+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <87fske3wzw.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> <YqHgdECTYFNJgdGc@zx2c4.com>
 <CACT4Y+ajfVUkqAjAin73ftqAz=HmLX=p=S=HRV1qe-8_y36J+A@mail.gmail.com> <YqHnH+Yc4TCOXa9X@zx2c4.com>
In-Reply-To: <YqHnH+Yc4TCOXa9X@zx2c4.com>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jun 2022 14:32:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+Zf8=DgaAYfFWL==vbYF13omtMUGaP=LzKEbsuVzrTe9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v5 1/1] printk: extend console_lock for per-console locking
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Amlogic Meson..." <linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
        bigeasy@linutronix.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 at 14:27, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > AFAIK, CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING is useful for teasing out cases
> > > where RT's raw spinlocks will nest wrong with RT's sleeping spinlocks.
> > > But nobody who wants an RT kernel will be using KFENCE. So this seems
> > > like a non-issue? Maybe just add a `depends on !KFENCE` to
> > > PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING?
> >
> > Don't know if there are other good solutions (of similar simplicity).
>
> Fortunately, I found one that solves things without needing to
> compromise on anything:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220609121709.12939-1-Jason@zx2c4.com/

Cool! Thanks!

> > Btw, should this new CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING be generally
> > enabled on testing systems? We don't have it enabled on syzbot.
>
> Last time I spoke with RT people about this, the goal was eventually to
> *always* enable it when lock proving is enabled, but there are too many
> bugs and cases now to do that, so it's an opt-in. I might be
> misremembering, though, so CC'ing Sebastian in case he wants to chime
> in.

OK, we will wait then.
Little point in doubling the number of reports for known issues.