[PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 18/22] powerpc/pseries: Stop calling printk in rtas_stop_self()

[PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 18/22] powerpc/pseries: Stop calling printk in rtas_stop_self()

[Sasha Levin]

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>

[ Upstream commit ed8029d7b472369a010a1901358567ca3b6dbb0d ]

RCU complains about us calling printk() from an offline CPU:

  =============================
  WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
  5.12.0-rc7-02874-g7cf90e481cb8 #1 Not tainted
  -----------------------------
  kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3568 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!

  other info that might help us debug this:

  RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
  rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
  no locks held by swapper/0/0.

  stack backtrace:
  CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.12.0-rc7-02874-g7cf90e481cb8 #1
  Call Trace:
    dump_stack+0xec/0x144 (unreliable)
    lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x124/0x144
    __lock_acquire+0x1098/0x28b0
    lock_acquire+0x128/0x600
    _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x6c/0xc0
    down_trylock+0x2c/0x70
    __down_trylock_console_sem+0x60/0x140
    vprintk_emit+0x1a8/0x4b0
    vprintk_func+0xcc/0x200
    printk+0x40/0x54
    pseries_cpu_offline_self+0xc0/0x120
    arch_cpu_idle_dead+0x54/0x70
    do_idle+0x174/0x4a0
    cpu_startup_entry+0x38/0x40
    rest_init+0x268/0x388
    start_kernel+0x748/0x790
    start_here_common+0x1c/0x614

Which happens because by the time we get to rtas_stop_self() we are
already offline. In addition the message can be spammy, and is not that
helpful for users, so remove it.

Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210418135413.1204031-1-mpe@ellerman.id.au
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
index 7a2beedb9740..a7d9dd029850 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
@@ -92,9 +92,6 @@ static void rtas_stop_self(void)
 
 	BUG_ON(rtas_stop_self_token == RTAS_UNKNOWN_SERVICE);
 
-	printk("cpu %u (hwid %u) Ready to die...\n",
-	       smp_processor_id(), hard_smp_processor_id());
-
 	rtas_call_unlocked(&args, rtas_stop_self_token, 0, 1, NULL);
 
 	panic("Alas, I survived.\n");
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 21/22] powerpc/iommu: Annotate nested lock for lockdep

[Sasha Levin]

From: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>

[ Upstream commit cc7130bf119add37f36238343a593b71ef6ecc1e ]

The IOMMU table is divided into pools for concurrent mappings and each
pool has a separate spinlock. When taking the ownership of an IOMMU group
to pass through a device to a VM, we lock these spinlocks which triggers
a false negative warning in lockdep (below).

This fixes it by annotating the large pool's spinlock as a nest lock
which makes lockdep not complaining when locking nested locks if
the nest lock is locked already.

===
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.11.0-le_syzkaller_a+fstn1 #100 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
qemu-system-ppc/4129 is trying to acquire lock:
c0000000119bddb0 (&(p->lock)/1){....}-{2:2}, at: iommu_take_ownership+0xac/0x1e0

but task is already holding lock:
c0000000119bdd30 (&(p->lock)/1){....}-{2:2}, at: iommu_take_ownership+0xac/0x1e0

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0
       ----
  lock(&(p->lock)/1);
  lock(&(p->lock)/1);
===

Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210301063653.51003-1-aik@ozlabs.ru
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c
index 9bfdd2510fd5..2cf900d16527 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c
@@ -1021,7 +1021,7 @@ int iommu_take_ownership(struct iommu_table *tbl)
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&tbl->large_pool.lock, flags);
 	for (i = 0; i < tbl->nr_pools; i++)
-		spin_lock(&tbl->pools[i].lock);
+		spin_lock_nest_lock(&tbl->pools[i].lock, &tbl->large_pool.lock);
 
 	if (tbl->it_offset == 0)
 		clear_bit(0, tbl->it_map);
@@ -1050,7 +1050,7 @@ void iommu_release_ownership(struct iommu_table *tbl)
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&tbl->large_pool.lock, flags);
 	for (i = 0; i < tbl->nr_pools; i++)
-		spin_lock(&tbl->pools[i].lock);
+		spin_lock_nest_lock(&tbl->pools[i].lock, &tbl->large_pool.lock);
 
 	memset(tbl->it_map, 0, sz);
 
-- 
2.30.2