MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230130232659.3374212-1-changbin.du@huawei.com> <Y9fdtcoh8POLZ6CD@wendy>
In-Reply-To: <Y9fdtcoh8POLZ6CD@wendy>
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 15:26:33 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJF2gTQm_iHHEOEv+38G6nqjDO5b+oDcUOXi8uKxZLXvG249Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] riscv: patch: Fixup lockdep warning in stop_machine
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
Cc:     Changbin Du <changbin.du@huawei.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Hui Wang <hw.huiwang@huawei.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>,
        Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:10 PM Conor Dooley
<conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Changbin,
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 07:26:59AM +0800, Changbin Du wrote:
> > From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com>
> >
> > The task of ftrace_arch_code_modify(_post)_prepare() caller is
> > stop_machine, whose caller and work thread are of different tasks. The
> > lockdep checker needs the same task context, or it's wrong. That means
> > it's a bug here to use lockdep_assert_held because we don't guarantee
> > the same task context.
> >
> > kernel/locking/lockdep.c:
> > int __lock_is_held(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)
> > {
> >         struct task_struct *curr = current;
> >         int i;
> >
> >         for (i = 0; i < curr->lockdep_depth; i++) {
> >                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >                 struct held_lock *hlock = curr->held_locks + i;
> >                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >                 if (match_held_lock(hlock, lock)) {
> >                         if (read == -1 || !!hlock->read == read)
> >                                 return LOCK_STATE_HELD;
> >
> > The __lock_is_held depends on current held_locks records; if
> > stop_machine makes the checker runing on another task, that's wrong.
> >
> > Here is the log:
> > [   15.761523] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [   15.762125] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 15 at arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c:63 patch_insn_write+0x72/0x364
> > [   15.763258] Modules linked in:
> > [   15.764154] CPU: 0 PID: 15 Comm: migration/0 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc1-00014-g66924be85884-dirty #377
> > [   15.765339] Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT)
> > [   15.765985] Stopper: multi_cpu_stop+0x0/0x192 <- stop_cpus.constprop.0+0x90/0xe2
> > [   15.766711] epc : patch_insn_write+0x72/0x364
> > [   15.767011]  ra : patch_insn_write+0x70/0x364
> > [   15.767276] epc : ffffffff8000721e ra : ffffffff8000721c sp : ff2000000067bca0
> > [   15.767622]  gp : ffffffff81603f90 tp : ff60000002432a00 t0 : 7300000000000000
> > [   15.767919]  t1 : 0000000000000000 t2 : 73695f6b636f6c5f s0 : ff2000000067bcf0
> > [   15.768238]  s1 : 0000000000000008 a0 : 0000000000000000 a1 : 0000000000000000
> > [   15.768537]  a2 : 0000000000000000 a3 : 0000000000000000 a4 : 0000000000000000
> > [   15.768837]  a5 : 0000000000000000 a6 : 0000000000000000 a7 : 0000000000000000
> > [   15.769139]  s2 : ffffffff80009faa s3 : ff2000000067bd10 s4 : ffffffffffffffff
> > [   15.769447]  s5 : 0000000000000001 s6 : 0000000000000001 s7 : 0000000000000003
> > [   15.769740]  s8 : 0000000000000002 s9 : 0000000000000004 s10: 0000000000000003
> > [   15.770027]  s11: 0000000000000002 t3 : 0000000000000000 t4 : ffffffff819af097
> > [   15.770323]  t5 : ffffffff819af098 t6 : ff2000000067ba28
> > [   15.770574] status: 0000000200000100 badaddr: 0000000000000000 cause: 0000000000000003
> > [   15.771102] [<ffffffff80007520>] patch_text_nosync+0x10/0x3a
> > [   15.771421] [<ffffffff80009c66>] ftrace_update_ftrace_func+0x74/0x10a
> > [   15.771704] [<ffffffff800fa17e>] ftrace_modify_all_code+0xb0/0x16c
> > [   15.771958] [<ffffffff800fa24c>] __ftrace_modify_code+0x12/0x1c
> > [   15.772196] [<ffffffff800e110e>] multi_cpu_stop+0x14a/0x192
> > [   15.772454] [<ffffffff800e0a34>] cpu_stopper_thread+0x96/0x14c
> > [   15.772699] [<ffffffff8003f4ea>] smpboot_thread_fn+0xf8/0x1cc
> > [   15.772945] [<ffffffff8003ac9c>] kthread+0xe2/0xf8
> > [   15.773160] [<ffffffff80003e98>] ret_from_exception+0x0/0x14
> > [   15.773471] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>
> FWIW, you can always crop the [15.192321] stuff out of commit messages,
> as it just adds noise.
>
> > By the way, this also fixes the same issue for patch_text().
> >
> > Fixes: 0ff7c3b33127 ("riscv: Use text_mutex instead of patch_lock")
> > Co-developed-by: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com>
> > Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> >  - denote this also fixes function patch_text().
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> >  - Rewrite commit log with lockdep explanation [Guo Ren]
> >  - Rebase on v6.1 [Guo Ren]
> >
> > v1:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20210417023532.354714-1-changbin.du@gmail.com/
> > ---
> >  arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c | 7 -------
> >  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
> > index 765004b60513..8619706f8dfd 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c
> > @@ -55,13 +55,6 @@ static int patch_insn_write(void *addr, const void *insn, size_t len)
> >       bool across_pages = (((uintptr_t) addr & ~PAGE_MASK) + len) > PAGE_SIZE;
> >       int ret;
> >
> > -     /*
> > -      * Before reaching here, it was expected to lock the text_mutex
> > -      * already, so we don't need to give another lock here and could
> > -      * ensure that it was safe between each cores.
> > -      */
> > -     lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex);
>
> I must admit, patches like this do concern me a little, as a someone
> unfamiliar with the world of probing and tracing.
> Seeing an explicit check that the lock was held, leads me to believe
> that the original author (Zong Li I think) thought that the text_mutex
> lock was insufficient.
> Do you think that their fear is unfounded? Explaining why it is safe to
> remove this assertion in the commit message would go a long way towards
> easing my anxiety!
>
> Also, why delete the comment altogether? The comment provides some
> information that doesn't appear to become invalid, even with the
> assertion removed?
Stop_machine separated the mutex context and made a lockdep warning.
So text_mutex can't be used here. We need to find another check
solution. I agree with the patch.

>
> Thanks,
> Conor.
>
> > -
> >       if (across_pages)
> >               patch_map(addr + len, FIX_TEXT_POKE1);
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
> >


--
Best Regards
 Guo Ren