Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-93727-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240203190927.19669-1-petr@tesarici.cz> <ea1567d9-ce66-45e6-8168-ac40a47d1821@roeck-us.net>
 <Zct5qJcZw0YKx54r@xhacker> <CANn89i+4tVWezqr=BYZ5AF=9EgV2EPqhdHun=u=ga32CEJ4BXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20d94512-c4f2-49f7-ac97-846dc24a6730@roeck-us.net> <CANn89iL1piwsbsBx4Z=kySUfmPa9LbZn-SNthgA+W6NEnojgSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a3749d3f-ced1-4c48-adaf-348c8dee7610@leemhuis.info> <20240228120308.48d6a9c2@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
 <e3181555-c08d-463f-a9a9-b08c69875c84@leemhuis.info> <20240306100153.32d305f7@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
 <20240306110312.04ddcde3@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20240306110312.04ddcde3@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:17:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CANn89iLfgK7zTWMutOycKyVepq=8n26MO_LTsUAy2JdVtXr-_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: stmmac: protect updates of 64-bit statistics counters
To: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciBUZXNhxZnDrWs=?= <petr@tesarici.cz>
Cc: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@leemhuis.info>, 
	Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>, 
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>, 
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>, 
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>, Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>, 
	"open list:STMMAC ETHERNET DRIVER" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE" <linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>, 
	"moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, 
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:ARM/Allwinner sunXi SoC support" <linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev>, Marc Haber <mh+netdev@zugschlus.de>, 
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org, 
	alexis.lothore@bootlin.com, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:03=E2=80=AFAM Petr Tesa=C5=99=C3=ADk <petr@tesari=
ci.cz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 10:01:53 +0100
> Petr Tesa=C5=99=C3=ADk <petr@tesarici.cz> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 09:23:53 +0100
> > "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@leemhuis.i=
nfo> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28.02.24 12:03, Petr Tesa=C5=99=C3=ADk wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:19:56 +0100
> > > > "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@leemhu=
is.info> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Net maintainers, chiming in here, as it seems handling this regres=
sion
> > > >> stalled.
> > > > Indeed, I was too busy with sandbox mode...
> > >
> > > Hmm, no reply in the past week to Petr's request for help from someon=
e
> > > with more knowledge about the field. :-/
> > >
> > > So I guess this means that this won't be fixed for 6.8? Unfortunate, =
but
> > > well, that's how it it sometimes.
> >
> > For the record, I _can_ reproduce lockdep splats on my device, but they
> > don't make any sense to me. They seem to confirm Jisheng Zhang's
> > conclusion that lockdep conflates two locks which should have different
> > lock-classes.
> >
> > So far I have noticed only one issue: the per-cpu syncp's are not
> > initialized. I'll recompile and see if that's what confuses lockdep.
>
> That wasn't the issue. FTR the syncp was in fact initialized, because
> devm_netdev_alloc_pcpu_stats() is a macro that also takes care of the
> initialization of the syncp struct field.
>
> The problem is u64_stats_init().
>
> Commit 9464ca650008 ("net: make u64_stats_init() a function") changed
> it to an inline function. But that's wrong. It uses seqcount_init(),
> which in turn declares:
>
>         static struct lock_class_key __key;
>
> This assumes that each lock gets its own instance. But if
> u64_stats_init() is a function (albeit an inline one), all calls
> within the same file end up using the same instance.
>
> Eric, would it be OK to revert the above-mentioned commit?

Oh, nice !

Well, this would not be a revert, let's keep type safety checks if possible=
.

Thanks.