Re: [PATCH 4/7] sempahore: add a helper for a concurrency limiter

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 08:45:52PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> index 291d4167fab8..00c9fcd90e1a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
> @@ -1177,7 +1177,7 @@ static const struct {
>  static struct ratelimit_state bld_ratelimit;
>  
>  static unsigned int sysctl_sld_mitigate = 1;
> -static DEFINE_SEMAPHORE(buslock_sem);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(buslock_sem);
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL
>  static struct ctl_table sld_sysctls[] = {
> @@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ static void split_lock_init(void)
>  static void __split_lock_reenable_unlock(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
>  	sld_update_msr(true);
> -	up(&buslock_sem);
> +	mutex_unlock(&buslock_sem);
>  }
>  
>  static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(sl_reenable_unlock, __split_lock_reenable_unlock);

^^^ clearly unsafe.  __split_lock_reenable_unlock() is called as a
delayed_work(), ie not in the context of the mutex locker.  lockdep
will freak out at this.

> @@ -351,12 +351,12 @@ virt_efi_set_variable_nonblocking(efi_char16_t *name, efi_guid_t *vendor,
>  {
>  	efi_status_t status;
>  
> -	if (down_trylock(&efi_runtime_lock))
> +	if (!mutex_trylock(&efi_runtime_lock))
>  		return EFI_NOT_READY;

looks to me like this can be called while we're oopsing.  if that's in
non-process context, lockdep will get angry.

> @@ -149,10 +149,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(efivar_lock, EFIVAR);
>   */
>  int efivar_trylock(void)
>  {
> -	if (down_trylock(&efivars_lock))
> +	if (!mutex_trylock(&efivars_lock))

also can be called from oops context.

> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ adb_probe_task(void *x)
>  	do_adb_reset_bus();
>  	pr_debug("adb: finished probe task...\n");
>  
> -	up(&adb_probe_mutex);
> +	mutex_unlock(&adb_probe_mutex);

adb_probe_task() can be called from a different context than the lock
holder.

> @@ -10594,7 +10594,7 @@ static bool bnx2x_prev_is_path_marked(struct bnx2x *bp)
>  	struct bnx2x_prev_path_list *tmp_list;
>  	bool rc = false;
>  
> -	if (down_trylock(&bnx2x_prev_sem))
> +	if (!mutex_trylock(&bnx2x_prev_sem))

bet you this can be called from interrupt context.

this really isn't something to use coccinelle for.