Re: [PATCH] genirq/test: Resolve irq lock inversion warnings

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 8/5/25 11:32, Brian Norris wrote:
> irq_shutdown_and_deactivate() is normally called with the descriptor
> lock held, and interrupts disabled. Nested a few levels down, it grabs
> the global irq_resend_lock. Lockdep rightfully complains [1].
> 
> Grab the descriptor lock, and disable interrupts, to resolve the
> complaint.
> 
> Tested with:
> 
>    tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run 'irq_test_cases*' \
>        --arch x86_64 --qemu_args '-smp 2' \
>        --kconfig_add CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL=y \
>        --kconfig_add CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y \
>        --raw_output=all
> 
> [1]
> ========================================================
> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> 6.16.0-11743-g6bcdbd62bd56 #2 Tainted: G                 N
> --------------------------------------------------------
> kunit_try_catch/40 just changed the state of lock:
> ffffffff898b1538 (irq_resend_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: clear_irq_resend+0x14/0x70
> but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past:
>   (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}-{2:2}
> 
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
>   Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>         CPU0                    CPU1
>         ----                    ----
>    lock(irq_resend_lock);
>                                 local_irq_disable();
>                                 lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
>                                 lock(irq_resend_lock);
>    <Interrupt>
>      lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
> 
> [...]
> 
>   ... key      at: [<ffffffff898b1538>] irq_resend_lock+0x18/0x60
>   ... acquired at:
>     __lock_acquire+0x82b/0x2620
>     lock_acquire+0xc7/0x2c0
>     _raw_spin_lock+0x2b/0x40
>     clear_irq_resend+0x14/0x70
>     irq_shutdown_and_deactivate+0x29/0x80
>     irq_shutdown_depth_test+0x1ce/0x600
>     kunit_try_run_case+0x90/0x120
>     kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x1c/0x40
>     kthread+0xf3/0x200
>     ret_from_fork+0x140/0x1b0
>     ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> 
> [    5.766715]     ok 2 irq_free_disabled_test
> [    5.769030]
> [    5.769106] ========================================================
> [    5.769159] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> [    5.769355] 6.16.0-11743-g6bcdbd62bd56 #1 Tainted: G                 N
> [    5.769413] --------------------------------------------------------
> [    5.769465] kunit_try_catch/122 just changed the state of lock:
> [    5.769532] ffffffffb81ace18 (irq_resend_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: clear_irq_resend+0x14/0x70
> [    5.769899] but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past:
> [    5.769967]  (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}-{2:2}
> [    5.769989]
> [    5.769989]
> [    5.769989] and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> ...
> [    5.776956]  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> [    5.776983]  </TASK>
> [    5.778916]     # irq_shutdown_depth_test: pass:1 fail:0 skip:0 total:1
> [    5.778953]     ok 3 irq_shutdown_depth_test
> 
> Fixes: 66067c3c8a1e ("genirq: Add kunit tests for depth counts")
> Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/31a761e4-8f81-40cf-aaf5-d220ba11911c@roeck-us.net/
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>

Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Thanks for the quick turnaround!

Guenter