From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] lockdep: Introduce lockdep_assume_ctx_held()
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2026 09:37:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261105083746.GP2668804@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <71bc2361d8676f1eea3c945cbf21a0c2542d5b92.1793654853.git.bvanassche@acm.org>
On Mon, Nov 02, 2026 at 01:34:38PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Introduce lockdep_assume_ctx_held() and lockdep_assume_shared_ctx_held()
> for code that needs to inform Clang's context analysis that a lock is
> held in code paths where lock ownership cannot be proven at compile
> time, e.g. because the lock is accessed through a pointer alias that
> the analysis cannot resolve. These macros call respectively
> __assume_ctx_lock() and __assume_shared_ctx_lock() and also verify at
> runtime with lockdep that the lock is held. Store the macro argument in
> a local variable with a unique name such that it is evaluated only once
> and such that nested use of these macros does not cause shadowing. Rely
> on Clang's context analysis resolving that local variable to the
> expression it has been initialized with. Document both macros with
> kernel-doc comments, including that __assume_ctx_lock() and
> __assume_shared_ctx_lock() must be used for context locks without
> lockdep support, e.g. bit spinlocks and the RCU context tokens.
>
> Convert the lockdep_assert_held() tests in lib/test_context-analysis.c
> into lockdep_assume_ctx_held() tests and add tests for
> lockdep_assume_shared_ctx_held().
>
> This patch prepares for removing the context assumptions from
> lockdep_assert_held*().
So the only convincing rationale from 0/n for doing this was that the
current annotation can hide the need, and thus cause a lacking of
__must_hold() on the function.
I'm not sure I understand how this alternative form of the same avoids
that same problem, and the above doesn't seem to mention the whole
problem -- either that, or I just can't read this morning.
> +#define _lockdep_assume_shared_ctx_held(var, uniq) \
> + do { \
> + __auto_type uniq = (var); \
> + \
> + __assume_shared_ctx_lock(uniq); \
> + lockdep_assert_held(uniq); \
> + } while (0)
> +
> +/**
> + * lockdep_assume_shared_ctx_held() - assume and verify shared lock ownership
> + * @var: context lock instance pointer
> + *
> + * Instruct the compiler's context analysis to assume that @var is held with
> + * shared access from this point on and verify at runtime with
> + * lockdep_assert_held() that @var is held. Use this macro for reader-writer
> + * locks, e.g. rwlock_t and struct rw_semaphore, in code paths where shared
> + * lock ownership cannot be proven at compile time. @var is evaluated only
> + * once.
> + *
> + * Since lockdep_assert_held() is used, no lockdep warning is reported if
> + * @var is held for writing instead of for reading. Holding a lock
> + * exclusively implies that shared access is allowed. Use
> + * lockdep_assume_ctx_held() if exclusive access is required.
We do have lockdep_assert_held_read(), which then requires a shared
access.
> + * @var must point at a lock object that is tracked by lockdep, i.e. that
> + * has a dep_map member. For context locks that are not tracked by lockdep,
> + * e.g. the RCU context tokens, use __assume_shared_ctx_lock() instead.
> + */
> +#define lockdep_assume_shared_ctx_held(var) \
> + _lockdep_assume_shared_ctx_held(var, __UNIQUE_ID(ctx_lock))
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> void lockdep_set_lock_cmp_fn(struct lockdep_map *, lock_cmp_fn, lock_print_fn);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-05 8:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-02 21:34 [PATCH 00/14] Stop lockdep_assert_held*() from assuming lock ownership Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 01/14] bit_spinlock: Fix the __bitlock() definition Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 02/14] cleanup: Disable context analysis for __free() helpers Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 03/14] tracing: Disable branch profiling for COMPILE_TEST builds Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 04/14] srcu: Remove check from srcu_dereference_check() Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 05/14] futex: Annotate __attach_to_pi_owner() and fixup_pi_*owner() Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 06/14] locking/rwsem: Annotate rwsem internal functions with __must_hold() Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 07/14] nvme-fabrics: Annotate nvmf_lookup_transport() with __must_hold_shared() Bart Van Assche
2026-11-03 7:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-11-03 20:37 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-11-04 7:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 08/14] lockdep: Introduce lockdep_assume_ctx_held() Bart Van Assche
2026-11-05 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-11-05 14:39 ` Marco Elver
2026-11-05 14:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-11-05 16:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 09/14] kfence: Use lockdep_assume_ctx_held() in kfence_report_error() Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 10/14] Bluetooth: Add lock context annotations for connection aliases Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 11/14] futex: Verify exit_mutex ownership in futex_exit_recursive() Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 12/14] lockdep: Stop lockdep_assert_held*() from assuming lock ownership Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 13/14] compiler-context-analysis: Split the RCU assertion tests Bart Van Assche
2026-11-02 21:34 ` [PATCH 14/14] rcu: Introduce lockdep_assume_in_rcu_*() Bart Van Assche
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=20261105083746.GP2668804@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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®