linux-kernel - Re: renesas_sdhi problems in 5.10-stable was Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/226] 5.10.198-rc1 review

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXNjopzEFCFBxxuYNCFMmj4SvMQ2PmZ4hZDHLGZGUHf=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2023 23:26:15 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se,
        yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com, biju.das.jz@...renesas.com,
        Chris.Paterson2@...esas.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org,
        Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: renesas_sdhi problems in 5.10-stable was Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/226]
 5.10.198-rc1 review

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:53 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:39 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > On 10/25/23 10:05, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 2:35 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:53 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > >> <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 12:47 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > >>> <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:22 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
> > >>>>> But we still have failures on Renesas with 5.10.199-rc2:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/pipelines/1047368849
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And they still happed during MMC init:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      2.638013] renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac ee100000.mmc: Got CD GPIO
> > >>>>> [    2.638846] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> > >>>>> [    2.644192] ledtrig-cpu: registered to indicate activity on CPUs
> > >>>>> [    2.649066] The code is fine but needs lockdep annotation, or maybe
> > >>>>> [    2.649069] you didn't initialize this object before use?
> > >>>>> [    2.649071] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > >>>>> [    2.649080] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.10.199-rc2-arm64-renesas-ge31b6513c43d #1
> > >>>>> [    2.649082] Hardware name: HopeRun HiHope RZ/G2M with sub board (DT)
> > >>>>> [    2.649086] Call trace:
> > >>>>> [    2.655106] SMCCC: SOC_ID: ARCH_SOC_ID not implemented, skipping ....
> > >>>>> [    2.661354]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x194
> > >>>>> [    2.661361]  show_stack+0x14/0x20
> > >>>>> [    2.667430] usbcore: registered new interface driver usbhid
> > >>>>> [    2.672230]  dump_stack+0xe8/0x130
> > >>>>> [    2.672238]  register_lock_class+0x480/0x514
> > >>>>> [    2.672244]  __lock_acquire+0x74/0x20ec
> > >>>>> [    2.681113] usbhid: USB HID core driver
> > >>>>> [    2.687450]  lock_acquire+0x218/0x350
> > >>>>> [    2.687456]  _raw_spin_lock+0x58/0x80
> > >>>>> [    2.687464]  tmio_mmc_irq+0x410/0x9ac
> > >>>>> [    2.688556] renesas_sdhi_internal_dmac ee160000.mmc: mmc0 base at 0x00000000ee160000, max clock rate 200 MHz
> > >>>>> [    2.744936]  __handle_irq_event_percpu+0xbc/0x340
> > >>>>> [    2.749635]  handle_irq_event+0x60/0x100
> > >>>>> [    2.753553]  handle_fasteoi_irq+0xa0/0x1ec
> > >>>>> [    2.757644]  __handle_domain_irq+0x7c/0xdc
> > >>>>> [    2.761736]  efi_header_end+0x4c/0xd0
> > >>>>> [    2.765393]  el1_irq+0xcc/0x180
> > >>>>> [    2.768530]  arch_cpu_idle+0x14/0x2c
> > >>>>> [    2.772100]  default_idle_call+0x58/0xe4
> > >>>>> [    2.776019]  do_idle+0x244/0x2c0
> > >>>>> [    2.779242]  cpu_startup_entry+0x20/0x6c
> > >>>>> [    2.783160]  rest_init+0x164/0x28c
> > >>>>> [    2.786561]  arch_call_rest_init+0xc/0x14
> > >>>>> [    2.790565]  start_kernel+0x4c4/0x4f8
> > >>>>> [    2.794233] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000014
> > >>>>> [    2.803011] Mem abort info:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> from https://lava.ciplatform.org/scheduler/job/1025535
> > >>>>> from
> > >>>>> https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-testing/linux-stable-rc-ci/-/jobs/5360973735 .
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is there something else missing?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't have a HopeRun HiHope RZ/G2M, but both v5.10.198 and v5.10.199
> > >>>> seem to work fine on Salvator-XS with R-Car H3 ES2.0 and Salvator-X
> > >>>> with R-Car M3-W ES1.0, using a config based on latest renesas_defconfig.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry, I looked at the wrong log on R-Car M3-W.
> > >>> I do see the issue with v5.10.198, but not with v5.10.199.
> > >>
> > >> It seems to be an intermittent issue. Investigating...
> > >
> > > After spending too much time on bisecting, the bad guy turns out to
> > > be commit 6d3745bbc3341d3b ("mmc: renesas_sdhi: register irqs before
> > > registering controller") in v5.10.198.
> > >
> > > Adding debug information shows the lock is mmc_host.lock.
> > >
> > > It is definitely initialized:
> > >
> > >      renesas_sdhi_probe()
> > >      {
> > >          ...
> > >          tmio_mmc_host_alloc()
> > >              mmc_alloc_host
> > >                  spin_lock_init(&host->lock);

Initializing mmc_host.lock.

> > >          ...
> > >          devm_request_irq()
> > >          -> tmio_mmc_irq
> > >              tmio_mmc_cmd_irq()
> > >                  spin_lock(&host->lock);

Locking tmio_mmc_host.lock, but ...

> > >          ...
> > >      }
> > >
> > > That leaves us with a missing lockdep annotation?
> >
> > Is it possible that the lock initialization is overwritten ?
> > I seem to recall a recent case where this happens.
> >
> > Also, there is
> >         spin_lock_init(&_host->lock);
> > in tmio_mmc_host_probe(), and tmio_mmc_host_probe() is called after
> > devm_request_irq().
>
> Unless I am missing something, that is initializing tmio_mmc_host.lock,
> which is a different lock than mmc_host.lock?

... tmio_mmc_host.lock is initialized only here.

Now the question remains why this is not triggered in mainline.
More investigation to do tomorrow...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds