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;
Feedback-ID: iad51458e:Fastmail
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 09:58:10 -0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Equip sleepable RCU with lockdep dependency
 graph checks
Message-ID: <Y8GbsulOXWNK9WGs@boqun-archlinux>
References: <20230113065955.815667-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
 <20230113130330.1027-1-hdanton@sina.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230113130330.1027-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:03:30PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2023 22:59:54 -0800 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> > @@ -1267,6 +1267,8 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp, bool do_norm)
> >  {
> >  	struct rcu_synchronize rcu;
> >  
> > +	srcu_lock_sync(&ssp->dep_map);
> > +
> >  	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lockdep_is_held(ssp) ||
> >  			 lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map) ||
> >  			 lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) ||
> > -- 
> > 2.38.1
> 
> The following deadlock is able to escape srcu_lock_sync() because the
> __lock_release folded in sync leaves one lock on the sync side.
> 
> 	cpu9		cpu0
> 	---		---
> 	lock A		srcu_lock_acquire(&ssp->dep_map);
> 	srcu_lock_sync(&ssp->dep_map);
> 			lock A

But isn't it just the srcu_mutex_ABBA test case in patch #3, and my run
of lockdep selftest shows we can catch it. Anything subtle I'm missing?

Regards,
Boqun