FAILED: patch "[PATCH] wifi: iwlwifi: mvm: spin_lock_bh() to fix lockdep regression" failed to apply to 6.3-stable tree

The patch below does not apply to the 6.3-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:

git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.3.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x f1a0898b5d6a77d332d036da03bad6fa9770de5b
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<[email protected]>' --in-reply-to '2023062625-squeamish-trident-4e6a@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.3.y' HEAD^..

Possible dependencies:

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From f1a0898b5d6a77d332d036da03bad6fa9770de5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 14:29:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] wifi: iwlwifi: mvm: spin_lock_bh() to fix lockdep regression

Lockdep on 6.4-rc on ThinkPad X1 Carbon 5th says
=====================================================
WARNING: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
6.4.0-rc5 #1 Not tainted
-----------------------------------------------------
kworker/3:1/49 [HC0[0]:SC0[4]:HE1:SE0] is trying to acquire:
ffff8881066fa368 (&mvm_sta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: rs_drv_get_rate+0x46/0xe7

and this task is already holding:
ffff8881066f80a8 (&sta->rate_ctrl_lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at: rate_control_get_rate+0xbd/0x126 which would create a new lock dependency:
(&sta->rate_ctrl_lock){+.-.}-{2:2} -> (&mvm_sta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock){+.+.}-{2:2}

but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock:
(&sta->rate_ctrl_lock){+.-.}-{2:2}
etc. etc. etc.

Changing the spin_lock() in rs_drv_get_rate() to spin_lock_bh() was not enough to pacify lockdep, but changing them all on pers.lock has worked.

index 23266d0c9ce4..9a20468345e4 100644
@@ -2692,7 +2692,7 @@ static void rs_drv_get_rate(void *mvm_r, struct ieee80211_sta *sta,
 
 	lq_sta = mvm_sta;
 
-	spin_lock(&lq_sta->pers.lock);
+	spin_lock_bh(&lq_sta->pers.lock);
 	iwl_mvm_hwrate_to_tx_rate_v1(lq_sta->last_rate_n_flags,
 				     info->band, &info->control.rates[0]);
 	info->control.rates[0].count = 1;

@@ -2707,7 +2707,7 @@ static void rs_drv_get_rate(void *mvm_r, struct ieee80211_sta *sta,
 		iwl_mvm_hwrate_to_tx_rate_v1(last_ucode_rate, info->band,
 					     &txrc->reported_rate);
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&lq_sta->pers.lock);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&lq_sta->pers.lock);
 }
 
 static void *rs_drv_alloc_sta(void *mvm_rate, struct ieee80211_sta *sta,

@@ -3264,11 +3264,11 @@ void iwl_mvm_rs_tx_status(struct iwl_mvm *mvm, struct ieee80211_sta *sta,
 	/* If it's locked we are in middle of init flow
 	 * just wait for next tx status to update the lq_sta data
 	 */
-	if (!spin_trylock(&mvmsta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock))
+	if (!spin_trylock_bh(&mvmsta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock))
 		return;
 
 	__iwl_mvm_rs_tx_status(mvm, sta, tid, info, ndp);
-	spin_unlock(&mvmsta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&mvmsta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock);
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MAC80211_DEBUGFS

@@ -4117,9 +4117,9 @@ void iwl_mvm_rs_rate_init(struct iwl_mvm *mvm,
 	} else {
 		struct iwl_mvm_sta *mvmsta = iwl_mvm_sta_from_mac80211(sta);
 
-		spin_lock(&mvmsta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock);
+		spin_lock_bh(&mvmsta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock);
 		rs_drv_rate_init(mvm, sta, band);
-		spin_unlock(&mvmsta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock);
+		spin_unlock_bh(&mvmsta->deflink.lq_sta.rs_drv.pers.lock);
 	}
 }