lockding/lockdep: Avoid to find wrong lock dep path in check_irq_usage()

stable inclusion
from stable-5.10.50
commit 963baea02dddc341febacc18a2e719aedbdb9c65
bugzilla: 174522 https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/I4DNFY

Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=963baea02dddc341febacc18a2e719aedbdb9c65

--------------------------------

[ Upstream commit 7b1f8c61 ]

In the step #3 of check_irq_usage(), we seach backwards to find a lock
whose usage conflicts the usage of @target_entry1 on safe/unsafe.
However, we should only keep the irq-unsafe usage of @target_entry1 into
consideration, because it could be a case where a lock is hardirq-unsafe
but soft-safe, and in check_irq_usage() we find it because its
hardirq-unsafe could result into a hardirq-safe-unsafe deadlock, but
currently since we don't filter out the other usage bits, so we may find
a lock dependency path softirq-unsafe -> softirq-safe, which in fact
doesn't cause a deadlock. And this may cause misleading lockdep splats.

Fix this by only keeping LOCKF_ENABLED_IRQ_ALL bits when we try the
backwards search.
Reported-by: NJohannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Signed-off-by: NBoqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210618170110.3699115-4-boqun.feng@gmail.comSigned-off-by: NSasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NChen Jun <chenjun102@huawei.com>
Acked-by: NWeilong Chen <chenweilong@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: NChen Jun <chenjun102@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: NZheng Zengkai <zhengzengkai@huawei.com>

kernel/locking/lockdep.c

@@ -2764,8 +2764,18 @@ static int check_irq_usage(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
 	 * Step 3: we found a bad match! Now retrieve a lock from the backward
 	 * list whose usage mask matches the exclusive usage mask from the
 	 * lock found on the forward list.
+	 *
+	 * Note, we should only keep the LOCKF_ENABLED_IRQ_ALL bits, considering
+	 * the follow case:
+	 *
+	 * When trying to add A -> B to the graph, we find that there is a
+	 * hardirq-safe L, that L -> ... -> A, and another hardirq-unsafe M,
+	 * that B -> ... -> M. However M is **softirq-safe**, if we use exact
+	 * invert bits of M's usage_mask, we will find another lock N that is
+	 * **softirq-unsafe** and N -> ... -> A, however N -> .. -> M will not
+	 * cause a inversion deadlock.
 	 */
-	backward_mask = original_mask(target_entry1->class->usage_mask);
+	backward_mask = original_mask(target_entry1->class->usage_mask & LOCKF_ENABLED_IRQ_ALL);
 
 	ret = find_usage_backwards(&this, backward_mask, &target_entry);
 	if (bfs_error(ret)) {