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

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 at 14:27, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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/

Cool! Thanks!

> > 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.

OK, we will wait then.
Little point in doubling the number of reports for known issues.