[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)

> I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below).
> Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying:
> e918188611f0 ("locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()")
> It looks like a false positive to me, but it made me think a bit and
> IIUC there can be still a potential deadlock, even if the deadlock
> scenario is a bit different than what lockdep is showing.
> In the assumption that read-locks are recursive only in_interrupt()
> context (as stated in e918188611f0), the following scenario can still
> happen:
> ---- ----
> read_lock(&trig->leddev_list_lock);
> write_lock(&trig->leddev_list_lock);
> <soft-irq>
> kbd_bh()
> -> read_lock(&trig->leddev_list_lock);
> *** DEADLOCK ***
> The write-lock is waiting on CPU1 and the second read_lock() on CPU0
> would be blocked by the write-lock *waiter* on CPU1 => deadlock.
> In that case we could prevent this deadlock condition using a workqueue
> to call kbd_propagate_led_state() instead of calling it directly from
> kbd_bh() (even if lockdep would still report the false positive).

console.c is already using bh to delay work from
interrupt. But... that should not be neccessary. led_trigger_event
should already be callable from interrupt context, AFAICT.

Could this be resolved by doing the operations directly from keyboard

Best regards,
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-01 17:29    [W:0.116 / U:2.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site