Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-93699-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 11:03:12 +0100
From: Petr =?UTF-8?B?VGVzYcWZw61r?= <petr@tesarici.cz>
To: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@leemhuis.info>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] net: stmmac: protect updates of 64-bit
 statistics counters
Message-ID: <20240306110312.04ddcde3@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20240306100153.32d305f7@meshulam.tesarici.cz>
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>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.inf=
o> wrote:
>=20
> > On 28.02.24 12:03, Petr Tesa=C5=99=C3=ADk wrote: =20
> > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:19:56 +0100
> > > "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@leemhuis=
info> wrote:
> > >    =20
> > >> Net maintainers, chiming in here, as it seems handling this regressi=
on
> > >> stalled.   =20
> > > Indeed, I was too busy with sandbox mode...   =20
> >=20
> > Hmm, no reply in the past week to Petr's request for help from someone
> > with more knowledge about the field. :-/
> >=20
> > So I guess this means that this won't be fixed for 6.8? Unfortunate, but
> > well, that's how it it sometimes. =20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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?

Petr T