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.
===
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@xxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c
index 557a09dd5b2f..2ee642a6731a 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c
@@ -1089,7 +1089,7 @@ 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);
iommu_table_release_pages(tbl);
--
2.17.1
