Re: [PATCH printk v5 1/1] printk: extend console_lock for per-console locking

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Dmitry,

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > AFAIK, CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING is useful for teasing out cases
> > where RT's raw spinlocks will nest wrong with RT's sleeping spinlocks.
> > But nobody who wants an RT kernel will be using KFENCE. So this seems
> > like a non-issue? Maybe just add a `depends on !KFENCE` to
> > PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING?
> 
> Don't know if there are other good solutions (of similar simplicity).

Fortunately, I found one that solves things without needing to
compromise on anything:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220609121709.12939-1-Jason@xxxxxxxxx/

> Btw, should this new CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING be generally
> enabled on testing systems? We don't have it enabled on syzbot.

Last time I spoke with RT people about this, the goal was eventually to
*always* enable it when lock proving is enabled, but there are too many
bugs and cases now to do that, so it's an opt-in. I might be
misremembering, though, so CC'ing Sebastian in case he wants to chime
in.

Jason