Hi, On 1/27/21 11:01 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>>>> Booting a 5.11-rc2 kernel with lockdep enabled inside a virtualbox vm (which still >>>>> emulates good old piix ATA controllers) I get the below lockdep splat early on during boot: >>>>> >>>>> This seems to be led-class related but also seems to have a (P)ATA >>>>> part to it. To the best of my knowledge this is a new problem in >>>>> 5.11 . >>>> >>>> This is on my for-next branch: >>>> >>>> commit 9a5ad5c5b2d25508996f10ee6b428d5df91d9160 (HEAD -> for-next, origin/for-next) >>>> >>>> leds: trigger: fix potential deadlock with libata >>>> >>>> We have the following potential deadlock condition: >>>> >>>> ======================================================== >>>> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected >>>> 5.10.0-rc2+ #25 Not tainted >>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>> swapper/3/0 just changed the state of lock: >>>> ffff8880063bd618 (&host->lock){-...}-{2:2}, at: ata_bmdma_interrupt+0x27/0x200 >>>> but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-READ-unsafe lock in the past: >>>> (&trig->leddev_list_lock){.+.?}-{2:2} >>>> >>>> If I'm not mistaken, that should fix your issue. >>> >>> I can confirm that this fixes things, thanks. >>> >>> I assume that this will be part of some future 5.11 fixes pull-req? >> >> This *regression* fix seems to still have not landed in 5.11-rc5, can >> we please get this on its way to Linus ? > > Is it a regression? AFAIK it is a bug that has been there > forever... My original plan was to simply wait for 5.12, so it gets > full release of testing... It may have been a pre-existing bug which got triggered by libata changes? I don't know. I almost always run all my locally build kernels with lockdep enabled and as the maintainer of the vboxvideo, vboxguest and vboxsf guest drivers in the mainline kernel I quite often boot local build kernels inside a vm. So I believe that lockdep tripping over this is new in 5.11, which is why I called it a regression. And the fix seems very safe and simple, so IMHO it would be good to get this into 5.11 Regards, Hans