Re: 5.11 new lockdep warning related to led-class code (also may involve ata / piix controller)
From: Hans de Goede <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-28 13:04:20
Also in:
linux-leds, lkml
Hi, On 1/27/21 11:01 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
Booting a 5.11-rc2 kernel with lockdep enabled inside a virtualbox vm (which still emulates good old piix ATA controllers) I get the below lockdep splat early on during boot: This seems to be led-class related but also seems to have a (P)ATA part to it. To the best of my knowledge this is a new problem in 5.11 .This is on my for-next branch: commit 9a5ad5c5b2d25508996f10ee6b428d5df91d9160 (HEAD -> for-next, origin/for-next) leds: trigger: fix potential deadlock with libata We have the following potential deadlock condition: ======================================================== WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected 5.10.0-rc2+ #25 Not tainted -------------------------------------------------------- swapper/3/0 just changed the state of lock: ffff8880063bd618 (&host->lock){-...}-{2:2}, at: ata_bmdma_interrupt+0x27/0x200 but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-READ-unsafe lock in the past: (&trig->leddev_list_lock){.+.?}-{2:2} If I'm not mistaken, that should fix your issue.I can confirm that this fixes things, thanks. I assume that this will be part of some future 5.11 fixes pull-req?This *regression* fix seems to still have not landed in 5.11-rc5, can we please get this on its way to Linus ?Is it a regression? AFAIK it is a bug that has been there forever... My original plan was to simply wait for 5.12, so it gets full release of testing...
It may have been a pre-existing bug which got triggered by libata changes? I don't know. I almost always run all my locally build kernels with lockdep enabled and as the maintainer of the vboxvideo, vboxguest and vboxsf guest drivers in the mainline kernel I quite often boot local build kernels inside a vm. So I believe that lockdep tripping over this is new in 5.11, which is why I called it a regression. And the fix seems very safe and simple, so IMHO it would be good to get this into 5.11 Regards, Hans