user/sven/linux.git/kernel/locking, branch v4.19.226

locking/lockdep: Avoid RCU-induced noinstr fail

2021-11-26T10:36:04Z

[ Upstream commit ce0b9c805dd66d5e49fd53ec5415ae398f4c56e6 ] vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: look_up_lock_class()+0xc7: call to rcu_read_lock_any_held() leaves .noinstr.text section Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210624095148.311980536@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/mutex: Fix HANDOFF condition

2021-09-22T09:47:48Z

[ Upstream commit 048661a1f963e9517630f080687d48af79ed784c ] Yanfei reported that setting HANDOFF should not depend on recomputing @first, only on @first state. Which would then give: if (ww_ctx || !first) first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter); if (first) __mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF); But because 'ww_ctx || !first' is basically 'always' and the test for first is relatively cheap, omit that first branch entirely. Reported-by: Yanfei Xu Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Waiman Long Reviewed-by: Yanfei Xu Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210630154114.896786297@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/mutex: clear MUTEX_FLAGS if wait_list is empty due to signal

2021-05-26T09:48:32Z

[ Upstream commit 3a010c493271f04578b133de977e0e5dd2848cea ] When a interruptible mutex locker is interrupted by a signal without acquiring this lock and removed from the wait queue. if the mutex isn't contended enough to have a waiter put into the wait queue again, the setting of the WAITER bit will force mutex locker to go into the slowpath to acquire the lock every time, so if the wait queue is empty, the WAITER bit need to be clear. Fixes: 040a0a371005 ("mutex: Add support for wound/wait style locks") Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Zqiang Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210517034005.30828-1-qiang.zhang@windriver.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qrwlock: Fix ordering in queued_write_lock_slowpath()

2021-04-28T11:16:52Z

[ Upstream commit 84a24bf8c52e66b7ac89ada5e3cfbe72d65c1896 ] While this code is executed with the wait_lock held, a reader can acquire the lock without holding wait_lock. The writer side loops checking the value with the atomic_cond_read_acquire(), but only truly acquires the lock when the compare-and-exchange is completed successfully which isn’t ordered. This exposes the window between the acquire and the cmpxchg to an A-B-A problem which allows reads following the lock acquisition to observe values speculatively before the write lock is truly acquired. We've seen a problem in epoll where the reader does a xchg while holding the read lock, but the writer can see a value change out from under it. Writer | Reader -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ep_scan_ready_list() | |- write_lock_irq() | |- queued_write_lock_slowpath() | |- atomic_cond_read_acquire() | | read_lock_irqsave(&ep->lock, flags); --> (observes value before unlock) | chain_epi_lockless() | | epi->next = xchg(&ep->ovflist, epi); | | read_unlock_irqrestore(&ep->lock, flags); | | | atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed() | |-- READ_ONCE(ep->ovflist); | A core can order the read of the ovflist ahead of the atomic_cmpxchg_relaxed(). Switching the cmpxchg to use acquire semantics addresses this issue at which point the atomic_cond_read can be switched to use relaxed semantics. Fixes: b519b56e378ee ("locking/qrwlock: Use atomic_cond_read_acquire() when spinning in qrwlock") Signed-off-by: Ali Saidi [peterz: use try_cmpxchg()] Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Steve Capper Acked-by: Will Deacon Acked-by: Waiman Long Tested-by: Steve Capper Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

lockdep: Add a missing initialization hint to the "INFO: Trying to register non-static key" message

2021-04-28T11:16:48Z

[ 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 Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210321064913.4619-1-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/ww_mutex: Simplify use_ww_ctx & ww_ctx handling

2021-04-07T10:48:48Z

[ Upstream commit 5de2055d31ea88fd9ae9709ac95c372a505a60fa ] The use_ww_ctx flag is passed to mutex_optimistic_spin(), but the function doesn't use it. The frequent use of the (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) combination is repetitive. In fact, ww_ctx should not be used at all if !use_ww_ctx. Simplify ww_mutex code by dropping use_ww_ctx from mutex_optimistic_spin() an clear ww_ctx if !use_ww_ctx. In this way, we can replace (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) by just (ww_ctx). Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210316153119.13802-2-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

rtmutex: Remove unused argument from rt_mutex_proxy_unlock()

2021-01-30T12:32:12Z

commit 2156ac1934166d6deb6cd0f6ffc4c1076ec63697 upstream Nothing uses the argument. Remove it as preparation to use pi_state_update_owner(). Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/lockdep: Fix overflow in presentation of average lock-time

2020-09-03T09:24:21Z

[ Upstream commit a7ef9b28aa8d72a1656fa6f0a01bbd1493886317 ] Though the number of lock-acquisitions is tracked as unsigned long, this is passed as the divisor to div_s64() which interprets it as a s32, giving nonsense values with more than 2 billion acquisitons. E.g. acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total holdtime-avg ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2350439395 0.07 353.38 649647067.36 0.-32 Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200725185110.11588-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locktorture: Print ratio of acquisitions, not failures

2020-04-23T08:30:23Z

commit 80c503e0e68fbe271680ab48f0fe29bc034b01b7 upstream. The __torture_print_stats() function in locktorture.c carefully initializes local variable "min" to statp[0].n_lock_acquired, but then compares it to statp[i].n_lock_fail. Given that the .n_lock_fail field should normally be zero, and given the initialization, it seems reasonable to display the maximum and minimum number acquisitions instead of miscomputing the maximum and minimum number of failures. This commit therefore switches from failures to acquisitions. And this turns out to be not only a day-zero bug, but entirely my own fault. I hate it when that happens! Fixes: 0af3fe1efa53 ("locktorture: Add a lock-torture kernel module") Reported-by: Will Deacon Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Acked-by: Will Deacon Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Josh Triplett Cc: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/lockdep: Avoid recursion in lockdep_count_{for,back}ward_deps()

2020-04-17T08:48:42Z

[ 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 Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200312151258.128036-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin