From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net (009.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443C7AD4B; Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737573341; cv=none; b=a67JnWbprqfUcQmsAtRopHa/y96urgmLlSjMojNhXEO81zYAtLXN6j95sm/zstEZnHzU3rn/tfy2fPoRAwiI2xJ4wtyOXlzb4mFTCMBDy3PrIhwqkKI20WYouP2481q7qDCQkBIdfbNLSotFg0TJxANaauzMWziwYIYdSuxSspI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737573341; c=relaxed/simple; bh=g96BqT8SVveiYsu680Vbw80CH/h9KOdOwn5ASWRgqy4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=UkRM5nEzBt2ZdmSTqkPe+R47Q3xmRAynXRco8wNd6m8hSb+wvWyK30WjNLtejeGzGIKn7qRl2qUhG6lhV/bgxpgoD6X44V0ayxfLH5YyIpFuBnWT0iYDkDYmazqAUe1Rsnv3XD/4XsJ2kHyP1XlbHnTyARe1tR15+c32GuofZFM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=FkysueDh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="FkysueDh" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YdYgt4JPvzlgMVb; Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:15:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1737573334; x=1740165335; bh=EirrPfwzbhTSAcLd57hedRna Cf/4chopTtE4+AKUp1E=; b=FkysueDhq/Zp0hvDkEoZWA7FPlVXN6rOcgGB5I5C IKJc+qi6RlA2rqoxJ3s6TqqB/ZT7aKFBqELNrOfjeMvg7oDdp8+ME8DA+lOX9ptQ JwoVD4nf7YhFAeNf0i8s8gqt+dfw2yiNJdbznokBvalr7ZslA/mtoV3IgfCpMvUm 0ggEmpxkF0BpVzrdz6Iu7KujW12UFLFt22s2mLC6mAzsDM09+vSVRsqQDEKbC8wG hpXij+h/63iAWrkO8xAm/F6In1SCrKSa9jRay7Egm0ikGVZ734cPnTW4qHhwZYxm b72NYu0s2L2HBznxZvSd6sOoOIi/SDzYSBNGg1T8E8+kmA== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (009.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id jFi6K3CUdDVC; Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:15:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.66.154.22] (unknown [104.135.204.82]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4YdYgm4GBDzlgVnN; Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4b3a1e3d-b555-4791-ba8b-73986c07c1b9@acm.org> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:15:30 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: Ensure clk_gating.lock is used only after initialization To: Avri Altman , "Martin K . Petersen" Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Manivannan Sadhasivam , Dmitry Baryshkov References: <20250122062718.3736823-1-avri.altman@wdc.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20250122062718.3736823-1-avri.altman@wdc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/21/25 10:27 PM, Avri Altman wrote: > This commit addresses a lockdep warning triggered by the use of the > clk_gating.lock before it is properly initialized. The warning is as > follows: > > [ 4.388838] INFO: trying to register non-static key. > [ 4.395673] The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe > [ 4.402118] you didn't initialize this object before use? > [ 4.407673] turning off the locking correctness validator. > [ 4.413334] CPU: 5 UID: 0 PID: 58 Comm: kworker/u32:1 Not tainted 6.12-rc1 #185 > [ 4.413343] Hardware name: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Robotics RB5 (DT) > [ 4.413362] Call trace: > [ 4.413364] show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C) > [ 4.413374] dump_stack_lvl+0x90/0xd0 > [ 4.413384] dump_stack+0x18/0x24 > [ 4.413392] register_lock_class+0x498/0x4a8 > [ 4.413400] __lock_acquire+0xb4/0x1b90 > [ 4.413406] lock_acquire+0x114/0x310 > [ 4.413413] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x60/0x88 > [ 4.413423] ufshcd_setup_clocks+0x2c0/0x490 > [ 4.413433] ufshcd_init+0x198/0x10ec > [ 4.413437] ufshcd_pltfrm_init+0x600/0x7c0 > [ 4.413444] ufs_qcom_probe+0x20/0x58 > [ 4.413449] platform_probe+0x68/0xd8 > [ 4.413459] really_probe+0xbc/0x268 > [ 4.413466] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x12c > [ 4.413473] driver_probe_device+0x40/0x11c > [ 4.413481] __device_attach_driver+0xb8/0xf8 > [ 4.413489] bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xe4 > [ 4.413495] __device_attach+0xfc/0x18c > [ 4.413502] device_initial_probe+0x14/0x20 > [ 4.413510] bus_probe_device+0xb0/0xb4 > [ 4.413517] deferred_probe_work_func+0x8c/0xc8 > [ 4.413524] process_scheduled_works+0x250/0x658 > [ 4.413534] worker_thread+0x15c/0x2c8 > [ 4.413542] kthread+0x134/0x200 > [ 4.413550] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 > > To fix this issue, we use the existing `is_initialized` flag in the > `clk_gating` structure to ensure that the spinlock is only used after it > has been properly initialized. We check this flag before using the > spinlock in the `ufshcd_setup_clocks` function. > > It was incorrect in the first place to call `setup_clocks()` before > `ufshcd_init_clk_gating()`, and the introduction of the new lock > unmasked this bug. > > Fixes: 209f4e43b806 ("scsi: ufs: core: Introduce a new clock_gating lock") > Reported-by: Dmitry Baryshkov > Signed-off-by: Avri Altman > --- > drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > index f6c38cf10382..a778fc51ca2a 100644 > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c > @@ -9142,7 +9142,7 @@ static int ufshcd_setup_clocks(struct ufs_hba *hba, bool on) > if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(clki->clk) && clki->enabled) > clk_disable_unprepare(clki->clk); > } > - } else if (!ret && on) { > + } else if (!ret && on && hba->clk_gating.is_initialized) { > scoped_guard(spinlock_irqsave, &hba->clk_gating.lock) > hba->clk_gating.state = CLKS_ON; > trace_ufshcd_clk_gating(dev_name(hba->dev), Has it been considered to move the spin_lock_init(&hba->clk_gating.lock) call from ufshcd_init_clk_gating() such that it occurs before its first use, e.g. just before the ufshcd_hba_init() call in ufshcd_init()? Thanks, Bart.