Re: [PATCH v2] smc91x: fix broken irq-context in PREEMPT_RT

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 07:03:38PM +0000, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> When smc91x.c is built with PREEMPT_RT, the following splat occurs
> in FVP_RevC:
> 
> [   13.055000] smc91x LNRO0003:00 eth0: link up, 10Mbps, half-duplex, lpa 0x0000
> [   13.062137] BUG: workqueue leaked atomic, lock or RCU: kworker/2:1[106]
> [   13.062137]      preempt=0x00000000 lock=0->0 RCU=0->1 workfn=mld_ifc_work
> [   13.062266] C
> ** replaying previous printk message **
> [   13.062266] CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 106 Comm: kworker/2:1 Not tainted 6.18.0-dirty #179 PREEMPT_{RT,(full)}
> [   13.062353] Hardware name:  , BIOS
> [   13.062382] Workqueue: mld mld_ifc_work
> [   13.062469] Call trace:
> [   13.062494]  show_stack+0x24/0x40 (C)
> [   13.062602]  __dump_stack+0x28/0x48
> [   13.062710]  dump_stack_lvl+0x7c/0xb0
> [   13.062818]  dump_stack+0x18/0x34
> [   13.062926]  process_scheduled_works+0x294/0x450
> [   13.063043]  worker_thread+0x260/0x3d8
> [   13.063124]  kthread+0x1c4/0x228
> [   13.063235]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> 
> This happens because smc_special_trylock() disables IRQs even on PREEMPT_RT,
> but smc_special_unlock() does not restore IRQs on PREEMPT_RT.
> The reason is that smc_special_unlock() calls spin_unlock_irqrestore(),
> and rcu_read_unlock_bh() in __dev_queue_xmit() cannot invoke
> rcu_read_unlock() through __local_bh_enable_ip() when current->softirq_disable_cnt becomes zero.
> 
> To address this issue, replace smc_special_trylock() with spin_trylock_irqsave().
> 
> Fixes: 8ff499e43c53 ("smc91x: let smc91x work well under netpoll")
> Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
> ---
> This patch based on v6.18.
> 
> History
> ========
> 
> >From v1 to v2:
>   - remove debug log.
>   - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251212185818.2209573-1-yeoreum.yun@arm.com/
> 

Firstly, I'd like to note that it seems to me that the last
non-trivial update to this driver seems to have occurred back in 2016.
Do you know if it is still actively used?

I agree that this patch seems appropriate as a bug fix.
But I do wonder if, as a follow-up for net-next when it re-opens,
smc_special_*lock could be removed entirely.
Other than being the source of this bug (which I guess is special),
they don't seem very special anymore. Perhaps they were once,
but that time seems to have passed.

Regarding the Fixes tag. I wonder if this one, which post-dates the
currently cited commit is correct. It seems to be when RT variants of
these locks was introduced.

Fixes: 342a93247e08 ("locking/spinlock: Provide RT variant header: <linux/spinlock_rt.h>")

Lastly, for reference, when posting fixes for Networking code, please:

* Target the patches at net like this:

  [PATCH net] ...

* Allow at least 24h to pass before posting updated patch versions

More can be found here: https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html


Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>