On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 12:25:11PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> On 07.04.2025 04:39, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@opinsys.com>
> >
> > Add an isolated list of unreferenced keys to be queued for deletion, and
> > try to pin the keys in the garbage collector before processing anything.
> > Skip unpinnable keys.
> >
> > Use this list for blocking the reaping process during the teardown:
> >
> > 1. First off, the keys added to `keys_graveyard` are snapshotted, and the
> > list is flushed. This the very last step in `key_put()`.
> > 2. `key_put()` reaches zero. This will mark key as busy for the garbage
> > collector.
> > 3. `key_garbage_collector()` will try to increase refcount, which won't go
> > above zero. Whenever this happens, the key will be skipped.
> >
> > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # v6.1+ Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen
> > <jarkko.sakki...@opinsys.com>
> This patch landed in today's linux-next as commit b0d023797e3e ("keys:
> Add a list for unreferenced keys"). In my tests I found that it triggers
> the following lockdep issue:
>
> ================================
> WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> 6.15.0-rc1-next-20250407 #15630 Not tainted
> --------------------------------
> inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage.
> ksoftirqd/3/32 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes:
> c13fdd68 (key_serial_lock){+.?.}-{2:2}, at: key_put+0x74/0x128
> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> lock_acquire+0x134/0x384
> _raw_spin_lock+0x38/0x48
> key_alloc+0x2fc/0x4d8
> keyring_alloc+0x40/0x90
> system_trusted_keyring_init+0x50/0x7c
> do_one_initcall+0x68/0x314
> kernel_init_freeable+0x1c0/0x224
> kernel_init+0x1c/0x12c
> ret_from_fork+0x14/0x28
> irq event stamp: 234
> hardirqs last enabled at (234): [<c0cb7060>]
> _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x5c/0x60
> hardirqs last disabled at (233): [<c0cb6dd0>]
> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x64/0x68
> softirqs last enabled at (42): [<c013bcd8>] handle_softirqs+0x328/0x520
> softirqs last disabled at (47): [<c013bf10>] run_ksoftirqd+0x40/0x68
OK what went to -next went there by accident and has been removed,
sorry. I think it was like the very first version of this patch.
Thanks for informing anyhow!
BR, Jarkko
