Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-buf: Assign separate lockdep class to chain lock

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 16:42:28 +0100
Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> wrote:

> On 3/2/26 16:28, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:55:43 -0800
> > Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> dma_fence_chain_enable_signaling() runs while holding the chain
> >> inline_lock and may add callbacks to underlying fences, which takes
> >> their inline_lock.
> >>
> >> Since both locks share the same lockdep class, this valid nesting
> >> triggers a recursive locking warning. Assign a distinct lockdep
> >> class to the chain inline_lock so lockdep can correctly model the
> >> hierarchy.
> >>
> >> Fixes: a408c0ca0c41 ("dma-buf: use inline lock for the
> >> dma-fence-chain") Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> >> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com>
> >> Cc: Philipp Stanner <phasta@kernel.org>
> >> Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c
> >> b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c index
> >> a707792b6025..4c2a9f2ce126 100644 ---
> >> a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c +++
> >> b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c @@ -242,6 +242,9 @@ void
> >> dma_fence_chain_init(struct dma_fence_chain *chain, struct
> >> dma_fence *fence, uint64_t seqno)
> >>  {
> >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)
> >> +	static struct lock_class_key dma_fence_chain_lock_key;
> >> +#endif
> >>  	struct dma_fence_chain *prev_chain =
> >> to_dma_fence_chain(prev); uint64_t context;
> >>  
> >> @@ -263,6 +266,20 @@ void dma_fence_chain_init(struct
> >> dma_fence_chain *chain, dma_fence_init64(&chain->base,
> >> &dma_fence_chain_ops, NULL, context, seqno);
> >>  
> >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * dma_fence_chain_enable_signaling() is invoked while
> >> holding
> >> +	 * chain->base.inline_lock and may call
> >> dma_fence_add_callback()
> >> +	 * on the underlying fences, which takes their
> >> inline_lock.
> >> +	 *
> >> +	 * Since both locks share the same lockdep class, this
> >> legitimate
> >> +	 * nesting confuses lockdep and triggers a recursive
> >> locking
> >> +	 * warning. Assign a separate lockdep class to the chain
> >> lock
> >> +	 * to model this hierarchy correctly.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	lockdep_set_class(&chain->base.inline_lock,
> >> &dma_fence_chain_lock_key); +#endif  
> > 
> > If we're going to recommend the use of this inline_lock for all new
> > dma_fence_ops implementers, as the commit message seems to imply
> >   
> >> Shared spinlocks have the problem that implementations need to
> >> guarantee that the lock lives at least as long all fences
> >> referencing them.
> >>
> >> Using a per-fence spinlock allows completely decoupling spinlock
> >> producer and consumer life times, simplifying the handling in most
> >> use cases.  
> > 
> > maybe we should have the lock_class_key at the dma_buf_ops level and
> > have this lockdep_set_class() automated in __dma_fence_init().  
> 
> The dma_fence_chain() and dma_fence_array() containers are the only
> ones who are allowed to nest the lock with other dma_fences. E.g. we
> have WARN_ON()s in place which fire when you try to stitch together
> something which won't work.
> 
> So everybody else should get a lockdep warning when they try to do
> nasty things like this because you really can't guarantee lock order
> between different dma_fence implementations.

Okay, that makes sense.