commit e9b736d8 upstream.

The class of 4 n_hdls buf locks is the same because a single function
n_hdlc_buf_list_init is used to init all the locks. But since
flush_tx_queue takes n_hdlc->tx_buf_list.spinlock and then calls
n_hdlc_buf_put which takes n_hdlc->tx_free_buf_list.spinlock, lockdep
emits a warning:
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
4.3.0-25.g91e30a7-default #1 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
a.out/1248 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&(&list->spinlock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffffa01fd020>] n_hdlc_buf_put+0x20/0x60 [n_hdlc]

but task is already holding lock:
 (&(&list->spinlock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffffa01fdc07>] n_hdlc_tty_ioctl+0x127/0x1d0 [n_hdlc]

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0
       ----
  lock(&(&list->spinlock)->rlock);
  lock(&(&list->spinlock)->rlock);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

 May be due to missing lock nesting notation

2 locks held by a.out/1248:
 #0:  (&tty->ldisc_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff814c9eb0>] tty_ldisc_ref_wait+0x20/0x50
 #1:  (&(&list->spinlock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffffa01fdc07>] n_hdlc_tty_ioctl+0x127/0x1d0 [n_hdlc]
...
Call Trace:
...
 [<ffffffff81738fd0>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x70
 [<ffffffffa01fd020>] n_hdlc_buf_put+0x20/0x60 [n_hdlc]
 [<ffffffffa01fdc24>] n_hdlc_tty_ioctl+0x144/0x1d0 [n_hdlc]
 [<ffffffff814c25c1>] tty_ioctl+0x3f1/0xe40
...

Fix it by initializing the spin_locks separately. This removes also
reduntand memset of a freshly kzallocated space.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>