| Message ID | 20221120101049.2078117-1-guoren@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Palmer Dabbelt |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [V2] riscv: patch: Fixup lockdep warning in stop_machine | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| conchuod/patch_count | success | Link |
| conchuod/cover_letter | success | Single patches do not need cover letters |
| conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be fixes |
| conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag present in non-next series |
| conchuod/verify_signedoff | fail | author Signed-off-by missing |
| conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/build_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| conchuod/checkpatch | warning | WARNING: 'runing' may be misspelled - perhaps 'running'? |
| conchuod/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/verify_fixes | success | Fixes tag looks correct |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig | success | Build OK |
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:10:49AM -0500, guoren@kernel.org wrote: > From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > Fixes: 0ff7c3b33127 ("riscv: Use text_mutex instead of patch_lock") > Cc: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > 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> > --- Hey Guo Ren, FYI you're missing a SoB from Chanbin on this patch. They gave one in their v1 though so you should be able to re-use that? Thanks, Conor. > 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/
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 6:13 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:10:49AM -0500, guoren@kernel.org wrote: > > From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > > > Fixes: 0ff7c3b33127 ("riscv: Use text_mutex instead of patch_lock") > > Cc: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > > 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> > > --- > > Hey Guo Ren, > > FYI you're missing a SoB from Chanbin on this patch. They gave one in > their v1 though so you should be able to re-use that? I'm waiting for his SoB. I don't think I could directly use his SoB in v1. I need him to confirm my rewritten commit log for lockdep analysis. > > Thanks, > Conor. > > > 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/ >
Hello, Does this patch get merged into riscv tree now? This problem has been there for a long time. (I suppose you have received my previous reponse.) On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:09:45PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 6:13 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:10:49AM -0500, guoren@kernel.org wrote: > > > From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > > > > > Fixes: 0ff7c3b33127 ("riscv: Use text_mutex instead of patch_lock") > > > Cc: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > > > 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> > > > --- > > > > Hey Guo Ren, > > > > FYI you're missing a SoB from Chanbin on this patch. They gave one in > > their v1 though so you should be able to re-use that? > I'm waiting for his SoB. I don't think I could directly use his SoB in > v1. I need him to confirm my rewritten commit log for lockdep > analysis. > > > > > Thanks, > > Conor. > > > > > 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/ > > > > > -- > Best Regards > Guo Ren
On 22 December 2022 00:19:02 GMT, Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> wrote: >Hello, >Does this patch get merged into riscv tree now? This problem has been there for a long >time. (I suppose you have received my previous reponse.) As far as I can tell, this patch is still missing a sign-off from you. There's nothing in response to this thread that I can see which provides one. > >On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:09:45PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 6:13 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:10:49AM -0500, guoren@kernel.org wrote: >> > > From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> >> > >> > > Fixes: 0ff7c3b33127 ("riscv: Use text_mutex instead of patch_lock") >> > > Cc: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> >> > > 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> >> > > --- >> > >> > Hey Guo Ren, >> > >> > FYI you're missing a SoB from Chanbin on this patch. They gave one in >> > their v1 though so you should be able to re-use that? >> I'm waiting for his SoB. I don't think I could directly use his SoB in >> v1. I need him to confirm my rewritten commit log for lockdep >> analysis. >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Conor. >> > >> > > 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/ >> > >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards >> Guo Ren >
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 8:19 AM Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > Does this patch get merged into riscv tree now? This problem has been there for a long > time. (I suppose you have received my previous reponse.) You could take the patch and update it to v3 with your SoB :) > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:09:45PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 6:13 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:10:49AM -0500, guoren@kernel.org wrote: > > > > From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > > > > > > > Fixes: 0ff7c3b33127 ("riscv: Use text_mutex instead of patch_lock") > > > > Cc: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > > > > 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> > > > > --- > > > > > > Hey Guo Ren, > > > > > > FYI you're missing a SoB from Chanbin on this patch. They gave one in > > > their v1 though so you should be able to re-use that? > > I'm waiting for his SoB. I don't think I could directly use his SoB in > > v1. I need him to confirm my rewritten commit log for lockdep > > analysis. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Conor. > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards > > Guo Ren > > -- > Cheers, > Changbin Du
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:10:49AM -0500, guoren@kernel.org 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 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 ]--- > > Fixes: 0ff7c3b33127 ("riscv: Use text_mutex instead of patch_lock") > Cc: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > 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> > --- > 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); > - > if (across_pages) > patch_map(addr + len, FIX_TEXT_POKE1); > > -- > 2.36.1 > Signed-off-by: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> Thanks!
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 12:29:56AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On 22 December 2022 00:19:02 GMT, Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> wrote: > >Hello, > >Does this patch get merged into riscv tree now? This problem has been there for a long > >time. (I suppose you have received my previous reponse.) > > As far as I can tell, this patch is still missing a sign-off from you. > There's nothing in response to this thread that I can see which provides one. > Just replied the patch and added my SoB. Thanks! > > > >On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:09:45PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 6:13 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:10:49AM -0500, guoren@kernel.org wrote: > >> > > From: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > Fixes: 0ff7c3b33127 ("riscv: Use text_mutex instead of patch_lock") > >> > > Cc: Changbin Du <changbin.du@gmail.com> > >> > > 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> > >> > > --- > >> > > >> > Hey Guo Ren, > >> > > >> > FYI you're missing a SoB from Chanbin on this patch. They gave one in > >> > their v1 though so you should be able to re-use that? > >> I'm waiting for his SoB. I don't think I could directly use his SoB in > >> v1. I need him to confirm my rewritten commit log for lockdep > >> analysis. > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Conor. > >> > > >> > > 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/ > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best Regards > >> Guo Ren > >
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); - if (across_pages) patch_map(addr + len, FIX_TEXT_POKE1);