print_circular_bug() reporting circular bug assumes that target hlock is
owned by the current. However, in crossrelease, target hlock can be
owned by other than the current. So the report format needs to be
changed to reflect the change.

Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 0621b3e..49b9386 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1129,22 +1129,41 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list 
*src_entry,
                printk(KERN_CONT "\n\n");
        }
 
-       printk(" Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n");
-       printk("       CPU0                    CPU1\n");
-       printk("       ----                    ----\n");
-       printk("  lock(");
-       __print_lock_name(target);
-       printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
-       printk("                               lock(");
-       __print_lock_name(parent);
-       printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
-       printk("                               lock(");
-       __print_lock_name(target);
-       printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
-       printk("  lock(");
-       __print_lock_name(source);
-       printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
-       printk("\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n");
+       if (cross_lock(tgt->instance)) {
+               printk(" Possible unsafe locking scenario by crosslock:\n\n");
+               printk("       CPU0                    CPU1\n");
+               printk("       ----                    ----\n");
+               printk("  lock(");
+               __print_lock_name(parent);
+               printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
+               printk("  lock(");
+               __print_lock_name(target);
+               printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
+               printk("                               lock(");
+               __print_lock_name(source);
+               printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
+               printk("                               unlock(");
+               __print_lock_name(target);
+               printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
+               printk("\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n");
+       } else {
+               printk(" Possible unsafe locking scenario:\n\n");
+               printk("       CPU0                    CPU1\n");
+               printk("       ----                    ----\n");
+               printk("  lock(");
+               __print_lock_name(target);
+               printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
+               printk("                               lock(");
+               __print_lock_name(parent);
+               printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
+               printk("                               lock(");
+               __print_lock_name(target);
+               printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
+               printk("  lock(");
+               __print_lock_name(source);
+               printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
+               printk("\n *** DEADLOCK ***\n\n");
+       }
 }
 
 /*
@@ -1169,7 +1188,10 @@ static inline int __bfs_backwards(struct lock_list 
*src_entry,
        printk("%s/%d is trying to acquire lock:\n",
                curr->comm, task_pid_nr(curr));
        print_lock(check_src);
-       printk("\nbut task is already holding lock:\n");
+       if (cross_lock(check_tgt->instance))
+               printk("\nbut now in the release context of lock:\n");
+       else
+               printk("\nbut task is already holding lock:\n");
        print_lock(check_tgt);
        printk("\nwhich lock already depends on the new lock.\n\n");
        printk("\nthe existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:\n");
-- 
1.9.1

Reply via email to