From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Subject: Re: kernel/futex/core.c:505:38: sparse: sparse: cast removes address space '__user' of expression
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:09:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260114120923.cYZJMtmF@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260114110828.GE830229@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 2026-01-14 12:08:28 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 10:35:17AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2026-01-13 20:39:19 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > tip/locking/core removes all the sparse lock annotations in favour of
> > > clang-22 tcsan.
> >
> > So this is what salvation looks like?
>
> :-)
>
> This seems to build for me. It is the bare basic conversion, without
> making use of the fancy __guarded_by() stuff for variables.
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/futex/Makefile b/kernel/futex/Makefile
> index b77188d1fa07..9242110a32e2 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex/Makefile
> +++ b/kernel/futex/Makefile
> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>
> +CONTEXT_ANALYSIS_core.o := y
> +CONTEXT_ANALYSIS_syscalls.o := y
> +CONTEXT_ANALYSIS_pi.o := y
> +CONTEXT_ANALYSIS_requeue.o := y
> +CONTEXT_ANALYSIS_waitwake.o := y
You could just do 'CONTEXT_ANALYSIS := y' since everything else works,
too. Can confirm.
…
> --- a/kernel/futex/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex/core.c
> @@ -879,10 +878,10 @@ void futex_q_lock(struct futex_q *q, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
> q->lock_ptr = &hb->lock;
>
> spin_lock(&hb->lock);
> + __acquire_ctx_lock(q->lock_ptr);
so it sees hb->lock and we fake q->lock_ptr. Okay.
> static void futex_cleanup_begin(struct task_struct *tsk)
> + __acquires(&tsk->futex_exit_mutex)
so this is needed even if it sees the whole context.
> --- a/kernel/futex/futex.h
> +++ b/kernel/futex/futex.h
> @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ enum futex_access {
>
> extern int get_futex_key(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags, union futex_key *key,
> enum futex_access rw);
> -extern void futex_q_lockptr_lock(struct futex_q *q);
> +extern void futex_q_lockptr_lock(struct futex_q *q) __acquires(q->lock_ptr);
> extern struct hrtimer_sleeper *
> futex_setup_timer(ktime_t *time, struct hrtimer_sleeper *timeout,
> int flags, u64 range_ns);
> @@ -311,9 +311,11 @@ extern int futex_unqueue(struct futex_q *q);
> static inline void futex_queue(struct futex_q *q, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb,
> struct task_struct *task)
> __releases(&hb->lock)
> + __releases(q->lock_ptr)
> {
> __futex_queue(q, hb, task);
> spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
> + __release_ctx_lock(q->lock_ptr);
so we need both. I then misunderstood the concept.
The function attribute is for other functions to learn and
__release_ctx_lock() for the current context?
> }
>
> @@ -379,6 +384,9 @@ extern int fixup_pi_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q, int locked);
> */
> static inline void
> double_lock_hb(struct futex_hash_bucket *hb1, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb2)
> + __acquires(&hb1->lock)
> + __acquires(&hb2->lock)
> + __no_context_analysis
so I was proud of my conditional thingy and the lockdep part but you use
whatever is there ;)
It certainly makes sense since logically both locks are acquired but is
kind of hard to explain.
> --- a/kernel/futex/pi.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex/pi.c
> @@ -614,6 +614,8 @@ int futex_lock_pi_atomic(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb,
> static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval,
> struct futex_pi_state *pi_state,
> struct rt_mutex_waiter *top_waiter)
> + __must_hold(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock)
> + __releases(&pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock)
So need to tell that wait_lock must be held by the caller and it will be
released because that latter is not expected even if the flow would
match it.
> {
> struct task_struct *new_owner;
> bool postunlock = false;
> @@ -670,6 +672,8 @@ static int wake_futex_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, u32 uval,
>
> static int __fixup_pi_state_owner(u32 __user *uaddr, struct futex_q *q,
> struct task_struct *argowner)
> + __must_hold(&q->pi_state->pi_mutex.wait_lock)
> + __must_hold(q->lock_ptr)
So that was the trick and llvm does not need to deal with unlock+lock
even if it is obvious from the flow.
Okay thank you. I go grab some food and then cry then a bit in the corner…
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-14 12:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-13 11:22 kernel test robot
2026-01-13 11:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-13 12:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-13 17:37 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-13 19:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-14 9:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-01-14 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-14 12:09 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2026-01-14 12:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-02-15 22:01 kernel test robot
2025-12-11 8:07 kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260114120923.cYZJMtmF@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®