1. 29 Jun, 2019 10 commits
  2. 25 Jun, 2019 6 commits
  3. 24 Jun, 2019 21 commits
  4. 22 Jun, 2019 3 commits
    • Linus Torvalds's avatar
      Linux 5.2-rc6 · 4b972a01
      Linus Torvalds authored
      4b972a01
    • Linus Torvalds's avatar
      Merge tag 'iommu-fix-v5.2-rc5' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joro/iommu · 6698a71a
      Linus Torvalds authored
      Pull iommu fix from Joerg Roedel:
       "Revert a commit from the previous pile of fixes which causes new
        lockdep splats. It is better to revert it for now and work on a better
        and more well tested fix"
      
      * tag 'iommu-fix-v5.2-rc5' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joro/iommu:
        Revert "iommu/vt-d: Fix lock inversion between iommu->lock and device_domain_lock"
      6698a71a
    • Peter Xu's avatar
      Revert "iommu/vt-d: Fix lock inversion between iommu->lock and device_domain_lock" · 0aafc8ae
      Peter Xu authored
      This reverts commit 7560cc3c.
      
      With 5.2.0-rc5 I can easily trigger this with lockdep and iommu=pt:
      
          ======================================================
          WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
          5.2.0-rc5 #78 Not tainted
          ------------------------------------------------------
          swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock:
          00000000ea2b3beb (&(&iommu->lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: domain_context_mapping_one+0xa5/0x4e0
          but task is already holding lock:
          00000000a681907b (device_domain_lock){....}, at: domain_context_mapping_one+0x8d/0x4e0
          which lock already depends on the new lock.
          the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
          -> #1 (device_domain_lock){....}:
                 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x50
                 dmar_insert_one_dev_info+0xbb/0x510
                 domain_add_dev_info+0x50/0x90
                 dev_prepare_static_identity_mapping+0x30/0x68
                 intel_iommu_init+0xddd/0x1422
                 pci_iommu_init+0x16/0x3f
                 do_one_initcall+0x5d/0x2b4
                 kernel_init_freeable+0x218/0x2c1
                 kernel_init+0xa/0x100
                 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
          -> #0 (&(&iommu->lock)->rlock){+.+.}:
                 lock_acquire+0x9e/0x170
                 _raw_spin_lock+0x25/0x30
                 domain_context_mapping_one+0xa5/0x4e0
                 pci_for_each_dma_alias+0x30/0x140
                 dmar_insert_one_dev_info+0x3b2/0x510
                 domain_add_dev_info+0x50/0x90
                 dev_prepare_static_identity_mapping+0x30/0x68
                 intel_iommu_init+0xddd/0x1422
                 pci_iommu_init+0x16/0x3f
                 do_one_initcall+0x5d/0x2b4
                 kernel_init_freeable+0x218/0x2c1
                 kernel_init+0xa/0x100
                 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
      
          other info that might help us debug this:
           Possible unsafe locking scenario:
                 CPU0                    CPU1
                 ----                    ----
            lock(device_domain_lock);
                                         lock(&(&iommu->lock)->rlock);
                                         lock(device_domain_lock);
            lock(&(&iommu->lock)->rlock);
      
           *** DEADLOCK ***
          2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
           #0: 00000000033eb13d (dmar_global_lock){++++}, at: intel_iommu_init+0x1e0/0x1422
           #1: 00000000a681907b (device_domain_lock){....}, at: domain_context_mapping_one+0x8d/0x4e0
      
          stack backtrace:
          CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.2.0-rc5 #78
          Hardware name: LENOVO 20KGS35G01/20KGS35G01, BIOS N23ET50W (1.25 ) 06/25/2018
          Call Trace:
           dump_stack+0x85/0xc0
           print_circular_bug.cold.57+0x15c/0x195
           __lock_acquire+0x152a/0x1710
           lock_acquire+0x9e/0x170
           ? domain_context_mapping_one+0xa5/0x4e0
           _raw_spin_lock+0x25/0x30
           ? domain_context_mapping_one+0xa5/0x4e0
           domain_context_mapping_one+0xa5/0x4e0
           ? domain_context_mapping_one+0x4e0/0x4e0
           pci_for_each_dma_alias+0x30/0x140
           dmar_insert_one_dev_info+0x3b2/0x510
           domain_add_dev_info+0x50/0x90
           dev_prepare_static_identity_mapping+0x30/0x68
           intel_iommu_init+0xddd/0x1422
           ? printk+0x58/0x6f
           ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0xf0/0x180
           ? do_early_param+0x8e/0x8e
           ? e820__memblock_setup+0x63/0x63
           pci_iommu_init+0x16/0x3f
           do_one_initcall+0x5d/0x2b4
           ? do_early_param+0x8e/0x8e
           ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x55/0x60
           ? do_early_param+0x8e/0x8e
           kernel_init_freeable+0x218/0x2c1
           ? rest_init+0x230/0x230
           kernel_init+0xa/0x100
           ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
      
      domain_context_mapping_one() is taking device_domain_lock first then
      iommu lock, while dmar_insert_one_dev_info() is doing the reverse.
      
      That should be introduced by commit:
      
      7560cc3c ("iommu/vt-d: Fix lock inversion between iommu->lock and
                    device_domain_lock", 2019-05-27)
      
      So far I still cannot figure out how the previous deadlock was
      triggered (I cannot find iommu lock taken before calling of
      iommu_flush_dev_iotlb()), however I'm pretty sure that that change
      should be incomplete at least because it does not fix all the places
      so we're still taking the locks in different orders, while reverting
      that commit is very clean to me so far that we should always take
      device_domain_lock first then the iommu lock.
      
      We can continue to try to find the real culprit mentioned in
      7560cc3c, but for now I think we should revert it to fix current
      breakage.
      
      CC: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
      CC: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
      CC: dave.jiang@intel.com
      Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
      Tested-by: default avatarChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJoerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
      0aafc8ae