[ Upstream commit 3a85969e9d912d5dd85362ee37b5f81266e00e77 ]
Since this message is printed when dynamically allocated spinlocks (e.g.
kzalloc()) are used without initialization (e.g. spin_lock_init()),
suggest to developers to check whether initialization functions for objects
were called, before making developers wonder what annotation is missing.
[ mingo: Minor tweaks to the message. ]
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210321064913.4619-1-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit b3b9c187dc2544923a601733a85352b9ddaba9b3 ]
There are currently three counters to track the IRQ context of a lock
chain - nr_hardirq_chains, nr_softirq_chains and nr_process_chains.
They are incremented when a new lock chain is added, but they are
not decremented when a lock chain is removed. That causes some of the
statistic counts reported by /proc/lockdep_stats to be incorrect.
IRQ
Fix that by decrementing the right counter when a lock chain is removed.
Since inc_chains() no longer accesses hardirq_context and softirq_context
directly, it is moved out from the CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS conditional
compilation block.
Fixes: a0b0fd53e1e6 ("locking/lockdep: Free lock classes that are no longer in use")
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200206152408.24165-2-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
[ Upstream commit 25016bd7f4caf5fc983bbab7403d08e64cba3004 ]
Qian Cai reported a bug when PROVE_RCU_LIST=y, and read on /proc/lockdep
triggered a warning:
[ ] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->hardirqs_enabled)
...
[ ] Call Trace:
[ ] lock_is_held_type+0x5d/0x150
[ ] ? rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online+0x64/0x80
[ ] rcu_read_lock_any_held+0xac/0x100
[ ] ? rcu_read_lock_held+0xc0/0xc0
[ ] ? __slab_free+0x421/0x540
[ ] ? kasan_kmalloc+0x9/0x10
[ ] ? __kmalloc_node+0x1d7/0x320
[ ] ? kvmalloc_node+0x6f/0x80
[ ] __bfs+0x28a/0x3c0
[ ] ? class_equal+0x30/0x30
[ ] lockdep_count_forward_deps+0x11a/0x1a0
The warning got triggered because lockdep_count_forward_deps() call
__bfs() without current->lockdep_recursion being set, as a result
a lockdep internal function (__bfs()) is checked by lockdep, which is
unexpected, and the inconsistency between the irq-off state and the
state traced by lockdep caused the warning.
Apart from this warning, lockdep internal functions like __bfs() should
always be protected by current->lockdep_recursion to avoid potential
deadlocks and data inconsistency, therefore add the
current->lockdep_recursion on-and-off section to protect __bfs() in both
lockdep_count_forward_deps() and lockdep_count_backward_deps()
Reported-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200312151258.128036-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Tetsuo Handa