Hi, On 1/20/2025 4:52 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> On 1/17/2025 8:35 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >>> Hou Tao <houtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> From: Hou Tao <houtao1@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> The freeing of special fields in map value may acquire a spin-lock >>>> (e.g., the freeing of bpf_timer), however, the lookup_and_delete_elem >>>> procedure has already held a raw-spin-lock, which violates the lockdep >>>> rule. >>> This implies that we're fixing a locking violation here? Does this need >>> a Fixes tag? >>> >>> -Toke >> Ah, the fix tag is a bit hard. The lockdep violation in the patch is >> also related with PREEMPT_RT, however, the lookup_and_delete_elem is >> introduced in v5.14. Also considering that patch #4 will also fix the >> lockdep violation in the case, I prefer to not add a fix tag in the >> patch. Instead I will update the commit message for the patch to state >> that it will reduce the lock scope of bucket lock. What do you think ? > Sure; and maybe put the same explanation for why there's no Fixes tag > into the commit message as well? :) I have rewritten the commit message for the patch and it is ready for resend. However it seems Alexei has already merged this patch set [1], therefore, I will keep it as is. [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/commit/?id=d10cafc5d54a0f70681ab2f739ea6c46282c86f9 > > -Toke > > .
