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;
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 13:56:18 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.co>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seqlock: Do the lockdep annotation before locking
 in do_write_seqcount_begin_nested()
Message-ID: <20230626125618.e52lrsmulrubrftm@techsingularity.net>
References: <20230623171232.892937-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20230623171232.892937-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230623171232.892937-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 07:12:31PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> It was brought up by Tetsuo that the following sequence
>    write_seqlock_irqsave()
>    printk_deferred_enter()
> 
> could lead to a deadlock if the lockdep annotation within
> write_seqlock_irqsave() triggers. The problem is that the sequence
> counter is incremented before the lockdep annotation is performed. The
> lockdep splat would then attempt to invoke printk() but the reader side,
> of the same seqcount, could have a tty_port::lock acquired waiting for
> the sequence number to become even again.
> 
> The other lockdep annotations come before the actual locking because "we
> want to see the locking error before it happens". There is no reason why
> seqcount should be different here.
> 
> Do the lockdep annotation first then perform the locking operation (the
> sequence increment).
> 
> Fixes: 1ca7d67cf5d5a ("seqcount: Add lockdep functionality to seqcount/seqlock structures")
> Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20230621130641.-5iueY1I@linutronix.de
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs