All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, joro@8bytes.org
Cc: will@kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, vasant.hegde@amd.com,
	mjrosato@linux.ibm.com, gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com,
	schnelle@linux.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] iommu/vt-d: Handle race between registration and device probe
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:37:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6557623d-3e4e-9f3e-e735-fd9654305f65@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <903a1677-4217-d793-6295-3927143d98fb@linux.intel.com>

On 2022-07-08 08:52, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/7/6 01:08, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> That also highlights an issue with intel_iommu_get_resv_regions() taking
>> dmar_global_lock from within a section where intel_iommu_init() already
>> holds it, which already exists via probe_acpi_namespace_devices() when
>> an ANDD device is probed, but gets more obvious with the upcoming change
>> to iommu_device_register(). Since they are both read locks it manages
>> not to deadlock in practice, so I'm leaving it here for someone with
>> more confidence to tackle a larger rework of the locking.
> 
> I am trying to reproduce this problem. Strangely, even if I selected
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y, the kernel didn't complain anything. :-)

FWIW, see below for the full report I get with this series applied (my 
machine doesn't have any ANDD entries to trigger the existing case).

> In fact the rmrr list in the Intel IOMMU driver is always static after
> parsing the ACPI/DMAR tables. There's no need to protect it with a lock.
> Hence we can safely remove below down/up_read().

IIRC that leads to RCU warnings via for_each_dev_scope(), though. I did 
try replacing this down_read() with rcu_read_lock(), but then it doesn't 
like the GFP_KERNEL allocation in iommu_alloc_resv_region(), and that's 
where I gave up :)

I'm mostly left wondering whether the dmar_drhd_units list really needs 
to be RCU protected at all, as that seems to be the root of most of the 
problems here.

Cheers,
Robin.

> 4512 static void intel_iommu_get_resv_regions(struct device *device,
> 4513                                          struct list_head *head)
> 4514 {
> 4515         int prot = DMA_PTE_READ | DMA_PTE_WRITE;
> 4516         struct iommu_resv_region *reg;
> 4517         struct dmar_rmrr_unit *rmrr;
> 4518         struct device *i_dev;
> 4519         int i;
> 4520
> 4521         down_read(&dmar_global_lock);
> 4522         for_each_rmrr_units(rmrr) {
> 4523                 for_each_active_dev_scope(rmrr->devices, 
> rmrr->devices_cnt,
> 4524                                           i, i_dev) {
> 
> Best regards,
> baolu


---->8-----

[   11.421712] pci 0000:00:1b.0: Adding to iommu group 0
[   11.421977]
[   11.421978] ============================================
[   11.421979] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
[   11.421981] 5.19.0-rc3-00015-gdc44a2269276 #32 Not tainted
[   11.421984] --------------------------------------------
[   11.421985] swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock:
[   11.421986] ffffffffb987b770 (dmar_global_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: 
intel_iommu_get_resv_regions+0x28/0x3a0
[   11.422000]
[   11.422000] but task is already holding lock:
[   11.422001] ffffffffb987b770 (dmar_global_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: 
intel_iommu_init+0x1638/0x1a08
[   11.422011]
[   11.422011] other info that might help us debug this:
[   11.422013]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[   11.422013]
[   11.422013]        CPU0
[   11.422014]        ----
[   11.422015]   lock(dmar_global_lock);
[   11.422018]   lock(dmar_global_lock);
[   11.422020]
[   11.422020]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[   11.422020]
[   11.422021]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[   11.422021]
[   11.422022] 2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
[   11.422024]  #0: ffffffffb987b770 (dmar_global_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: 
intel_iommu_init+0x1638/0x1a08
[   11.422033]  #1: ffff8881077a10c0 (&group->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: 
bus_iommu_probe+0x139/0x4c0
[   11.422044]
[   11.422044] stack backtrace:
[   11.422046] CPU: 8 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 
5.19.0-rc3-00015-gdc44a2269276 #32
[   11.422050] Hardware name: LENOVO 30B6S08J03/1030, BIOS S01KT29A 
06/20/2016
[   11.422052] Call Trace:
[   11.422054]  <TASK>
[   11.422056]  dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x59
[   11.422064]  __lock_acquire.cold+0x131/0x305
[   11.422075]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x220/0x220
[   11.422082]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd7/0x130
[   11.422090]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x9c/0xd0
[   11.422098]  lock_acquire+0x165/0x410
[   11.422102]  ? intel_iommu_get_resv_regions+0x28/0x3a0
[   11.422108]  ? lock_release+0x410/0x410
[   11.422112]  ? __iommu_domain_alloc+0xc5/0x130
[   11.422116]  ? iommu_group_alloc_default_domain+0x16/0x90
[   11.422121]  ? bus_iommu_probe+0x26d/0x4c0
[   11.422126]  ? iommu_device_register+0x11e/0x160
[   11.422130]  ? intel_iommu_init+0x16e0/0x1a08
[   11.422135]  ? do_one_initcall+0xb6/0x3c0
[   11.422140]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd7/0x130
[   11.422147]  down_read+0x97/0x2f0
[   11.422152]  ? intel_iommu_get_resv_regions+0x28/0x3a0
[   11.422156]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
[   11.422161]  ? rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0xa10/0xa10
[   11.422166]  ? find_held_lock+0x85/0xa0
[   11.422173]  intel_iommu_get_resv_regions+0x28/0x3a0
[   11.422178]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x9c/0xd0
[   11.422185]  iommu_create_device_direct_mappings.isra.0+0x11a/0x330
[   11.422193]  ? iommu_map+0x50/0x50
[   11.422198]  ? __iommu_domain_alloc+0xc5/0x130
[   11.422205]  bus_iommu_probe+0x2bc/0x4c0
[   11.422210]  ? iommu_device_register+0xba/0x160
[   11.422216]  ? iommu_group_default_domain+0x20/0x20
[   11.422221]  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x114/0x1d0
[   11.422226]  ? rwlock_bug.part.0+0x50/0x50
[   11.422231]  ? rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0xa10/0xa10
[   11.422239]  iommu_device_register+0x11e/0x160
[   11.422244]  intel_iommu_init+0x16e0/0x1a08
[   11.422249]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
[   11.422254]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x28/0x50
[   11.422261]  ? lock_release+0x240/0x410
[   11.422265]  ? populate_rootfs+0x26/0x37
[   11.422272]  ? lock_downgrade+0x3a0/0x3a0
[   11.422277]  ? dmar_parse_one_rmrr+0x203/0x203
[   11.422281]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd7/0x130
[   11.422286]  ? iommu_setup+0x282/0x282
[   11.422291]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x9c/0xd0
[   11.422296]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
[   11.422301]  ? up_write+0xd3/0x260
[   11.422305]  ? iommu_setup+0x282/0x282
[   11.422309]  pci_iommu_init+0x15/0x39
[   11.422313]  do_one_initcall+0xb6/0x3c0
[   11.422317]  ? initcall_blacklisted+0x120/0x120
[   11.422322]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x9c/0xd0
[   11.422327]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
[   11.422331]  ? kasan_unpoison+0x23/0x50
[   11.422337]  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x2c/0x80
[   11.422344]  kernel_init_freeable+0x330/0x389
[   11.422349]  ? rest_init+0x1b0/0x1b0
[   11.422354]  kernel_init+0x14/0x130
[   11.422359]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[   11.422367]  </TASK>


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>, joro@8bytes.org
Cc: will@kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, vasant.hegde@amd.com,
	mjrosato@linux.ibm.com, gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com,
	schnelle@linux.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] iommu/vt-d: Handle race between registration and device probe
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:37:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6557623d-3e4e-9f3e-e735-fd9654305f65@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <903a1677-4217-d793-6295-3927143d98fb@linux.intel.com>

On 2022-07-08 08:52, Baolu Lu wrote:
> On 2022/7/6 01:08, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> That also highlights an issue with intel_iommu_get_resv_regions() taking
>> dmar_global_lock from within a section where intel_iommu_init() already
>> holds it, which already exists via probe_acpi_namespace_devices() when
>> an ANDD device is probed, but gets more obvious with the upcoming change
>> to iommu_device_register(). Since they are both read locks it manages
>> not to deadlock in practice, so I'm leaving it here for someone with
>> more confidence to tackle a larger rework of the locking.
> 
> I am trying to reproduce this problem. Strangely, even if I selected
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y, the kernel didn't complain anything. :-)

FWIW, see below for the full report I get with this series applied (my 
machine doesn't have any ANDD entries to trigger the existing case).

> In fact the rmrr list in the Intel IOMMU driver is always static after
> parsing the ACPI/DMAR tables. There's no need to protect it with a lock.
> Hence we can safely remove below down/up_read().

IIRC that leads to RCU warnings via for_each_dev_scope(), though. I did 
try replacing this down_read() with rcu_read_lock(), but then it doesn't 
like the GFP_KERNEL allocation in iommu_alloc_resv_region(), and that's 
where I gave up :)

I'm mostly left wondering whether the dmar_drhd_units list really needs 
to be RCU protected at all, as that seems to be the root of most of the 
problems here.

Cheers,
Robin.

> 4512 static void intel_iommu_get_resv_regions(struct device *device,
> 4513                                          struct list_head *head)
> 4514 {
> 4515         int prot = DMA_PTE_READ | DMA_PTE_WRITE;
> 4516         struct iommu_resv_region *reg;
> 4517         struct dmar_rmrr_unit *rmrr;
> 4518         struct device *i_dev;
> 4519         int i;
> 4520
> 4521         down_read(&dmar_global_lock);
> 4522         for_each_rmrr_units(rmrr) {
> 4523                 for_each_active_dev_scope(rmrr->devices, 
> rmrr->devices_cnt,
> 4524                                           i, i_dev) {
> 
> Best regards,
> baolu


---->8-----

[   11.421712] pci 0000:00:1b.0: Adding to iommu group 0
[   11.421977]
[   11.421978] ============================================
[   11.421979] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
[   11.421981] 5.19.0-rc3-00015-gdc44a2269276 #32 Not tainted
[   11.421984] --------------------------------------------
[   11.421985] swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock:
[   11.421986] ffffffffb987b770 (dmar_global_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: 
intel_iommu_get_resv_regions+0x28/0x3a0
[   11.422000]
[   11.422000] but task is already holding lock:
[   11.422001] ffffffffb987b770 (dmar_global_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: 
intel_iommu_init+0x1638/0x1a08
[   11.422011]
[   11.422011] other info that might help us debug this:
[   11.422013]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[   11.422013]
[   11.422013]        CPU0
[   11.422014]        ----
[   11.422015]   lock(dmar_global_lock);
[   11.422018]   lock(dmar_global_lock);
[   11.422020]
[   11.422020]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[   11.422020]
[   11.422021]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[   11.422021]
[   11.422022] 2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
[   11.422024]  #0: ffffffffb987b770 (dmar_global_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: 
intel_iommu_init+0x1638/0x1a08
[   11.422033]  #1: ffff8881077a10c0 (&group->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: 
bus_iommu_probe+0x139/0x4c0
[   11.422044]
[   11.422044] stack backtrace:
[   11.422046] CPU: 8 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 
5.19.0-rc3-00015-gdc44a2269276 #32
[   11.422050] Hardware name: LENOVO 30B6S08J03/1030, BIOS S01KT29A 
06/20/2016
[   11.422052] Call Trace:
[   11.422054]  <TASK>
[   11.422056]  dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x59
[   11.422064]  __lock_acquire.cold+0x131/0x305
[   11.422075]  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x220/0x220
[   11.422082]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd7/0x130
[   11.422090]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x9c/0xd0
[   11.422098]  lock_acquire+0x165/0x410
[   11.422102]  ? intel_iommu_get_resv_regions+0x28/0x3a0
[   11.422108]  ? lock_release+0x410/0x410
[   11.422112]  ? __iommu_domain_alloc+0xc5/0x130
[   11.422116]  ? iommu_group_alloc_default_domain+0x16/0x90
[   11.422121]  ? bus_iommu_probe+0x26d/0x4c0
[   11.422126]  ? iommu_device_register+0x11e/0x160
[   11.422130]  ? intel_iommu_init+0x16e0/0x1a08
[   11.422135]  ? do_one_initcall+0xb6/0x3c0
[   11.422140]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd7/0x130
[   11.422147]  down_read+0x97/0x2f0
[   11.422152]  ? intel_iommu_get_resv_regions+0x28/0x3a0
[   11.422156]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
[   11.422161]  ? rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0xa10/0xa10
[   11.422166]  ? find_held_lock+0x85/0xa0
[   11.422173]  intel_iommu_get_resv_regions+0x28/0x3a0
[   11.422178]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x9c/0xd0
[   11.422185]  iommu_create_device_direct_mappings.isra.0+0x11a/0x330
[   11.422193]  ? iommu_map+0x50/0x50
[   11.422198]  ? __iommu_domain_alloc+0xc5/0x130
[   11.422205]  bus_iommu_probe+0x2bc/0x4c0
[   11.422210]  ? iommu_device_register+0xba/0x160
[   11.422216]  ? iommu_group_default_domain+0x20/0x20
[   11.422221]  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x114/0x1d0
[   11.422226]  ? rwlock_bug.part.0+0x50/0x50
[   11.422231]  ? rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0xa10/0xa10
[   11.422239]  iommu_device_register+0x11e/0x160
[   11.422244]  intel_iommu_init+0x16e0/0x1a08
[   11.422249]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
[   11.422254]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x28/0x50
[   11.422261]  ? lock_release+0x240/0x410
[   11.422265]  ? populate_rootfs+0x26/0x37
[   11.422272]  ? lock_downgrade+0x3a0/0x3a0
[   11.422277]  ? dmar_parse_one_rmrr+0x203/0x203
[   11.422281]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xd7/0x130
[   11.422286]  ? iommu_setup+0x282/0x282
[   11.422291]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x9c/0xd0
[   11.422296]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
[   11.422301]  ? up_write+0xd3/0x260
[   11.422305]  ? iommu_setup+0x282/0x282
[   11.422309]  pci_iommu_init+0x15/0x39
[   11.422313]  do_one_initcall+0xb6/0x3c0
[   11.422317]  ? initcall_blacklisted+0x120/0x120
[   11.422322]  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x9c/0xd0
[   11.422327]  ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
[   11.422331]  ? kasan_unpoison+0x23/0x50
[   11.422337]  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x2c/0x80
[   11.422344]  kernel_init_freeable+0x330/0x389
[   11.422349]  ? rest_init+0x1b0/0x1b0
[   11.422354]  kernel_init+0x14/0x130
[   11.422359]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[   11.422367]  </TASK>


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-15 12:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-05 17:08 [PATCH v3 00/15] iommu: Retire bus_set_iommu() Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 01/15] iommu/vt-d: Handle race between registration and device probe Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-06  1:39   ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-06  1:39     ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-07  6:51   ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-07  6:51     ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-08  7:52   ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-08  7:52     ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-15 12:37     ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2022-07-15 12:37       ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-19  0:06       ` Lu Baolu
2022-07-19  0:06         ` Lu Baolu
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 02/15] iommu/amd: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 03/15] iommu: Always register bus notifiers Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-06  1:53   ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-06  1:53     ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-06 13:43     ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-06 13:43       ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-07  0:20       ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-07  0:20         ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-07  6:34         ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-07  6:34           ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-07  9:38           ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-07  9:38             ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-07  6:31   ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-07  6:31     ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-07  9:58     ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-07  9:58       ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-08  5:50       ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-08  5:50         ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 04/15] iommu: Move bus setup to IOMMU device registration Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-06  2:35   ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-06  2:35     ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-06 14:37     ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-06 14:37       ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-07  1:19       ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-07  1:19         ` Baolu Lu
2022-07-07  6:51   ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-07  6:51     ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-07 10:58     ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-07 10:58       ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-08  5:52       ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-08  5:52         ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 05/15] iommu/amd: Clean up bus_set_iommu() Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 06/15] iommu/arm-smmu: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 07/15] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 08/15] iommu/dart: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 09/15] iommu/exynos: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 10/15] iommu/ipmmu-vmsa: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 11/15] iommu/mtk: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 12/15] iommu/omap: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 13/15] iommu/tegra-smmu: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 14/15] iommu/virtio: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08 ` [PATCH v3 15/15] iommu: " Robin Murphy
2022-07-05 17:08   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-07  7:45   ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-07  7:45     ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-07 12:49   ` Matthew Rosato
2022-07-07 12:49     ` Matthew Rosato
2022-07-07 12:54     ` Matthew Rosato
2022-07-07 12:54       ` Matthew Rosato
2022-07-07 14:58       ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-07 14:58         ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-07 16:42         ` Matthew Rosato
2022-07-07 16:42           ` Matthew Rosato
2022-07-08  8:14     ` [PATCH] iommu/s390: fail probe for non-pci device Niklas Schnelle
2022-07-08  8:14       ` Niklas Schnelle
2022-07-08  8:17 ` [PATCH v3 00/15] iommu: Retire bus_set_iommu() Niklas Schnelle
2022-07-08  8:17   ` Niklas Schnelle
2022-07-15 13:12 ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-15 13:12   ` Robin Murphy
2022-07-21  7:17   ` Tian, Kevin
2022-07-21  7:17     ` Tian, Kevin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=6557623d-3e4e-9f3e-e735-fd9654305f65@arm.com \
    --to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
    --cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
    --cc=vasant.hegde@amd.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.