From: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
To: scott.branden@broadcom.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, arnd@arndb.de,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3] misc: bcm_vk: Fix potential deadlock on &vk->ctx_lock
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 18:29:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230629182941.13045-1-dg573847474@gmail.com> (raw)
As &vk->ctx_lock is acquired by timer bcm_vk_hb_poll() under softirq
context, other process context code should disable irq or bottom-half
before acquire the same lock, otherwise deadlock could happen if the
timer preempt the execution while the lock is held in process context
on the same CPU.
Possible deadlock scenario
bcm_vk_open()
-> bcm_vk_get_ctx()
-> spin_lock(&vk->ctx_lock)
<timer iterrupt>
-> bcm_vk_hb_poll()
-> bcm_vk_blk_drv_access()
-> spin_lock_irqsave(&vk->ctx_lock, flags) (deadlock here)
This flaw was found using an experimental static analysis tool we are
developing for irq-related deadlock, which reported the following
warning when analyzing the linux kernel 6.4-rc7 release.
[Deadlock]: &vk->ctx_lock
[Interrupt]: bcm_vk_hb_poll
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c:176
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_dev.c:512
[Locking Unit]: bcm_vk_ioctl
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_dev.c:1181
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_dev.c:512
[Deadlock]: &vk->ctx_lock
[Interrupt]: bcm_vk_hb_poll
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c:176
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_dev.c:512
[Locking Unit]: bcm_vk_ioctl
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_dev.c:1169
[Deadlock]: &vk->ctx_lock
[Interrupt]: bcm_vk_hb_poll
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c:176
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_dev.c:512
[Locking Unit]: bcm_vk_open
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c:216
[Deadlock]: &vk->ctx_lock
[Interrupt]: bcm_vk_hb_poll
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c:176
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_dev.c:512
[Locking Unit]: bcm_vk_release
-->/root/linux/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c:306
As suggested by Arnd, the tentative patch fix the potential deadlocks
by replacing the timer with delay workqueue. x86_64 allyesconfig using
GCC shows no new warning. Note that no runtime testing was performed
due to no device on hand.
Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
---
drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk.h | 2 +-
drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c | 14 +++++++-------
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk.h b/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk.h
index 25d51222eedf..386884c2a263 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk.h
+++ b/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk.h
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ struct bcm_vk_proc_mon_info {
};
struct bcm_vk_hb_ctrl {
- struct timer_list timer;
+ struct delayed_work work;
u32 last_uptime;
u32 lost_cnt;
};
diff --git a/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c b/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c
index 3c081504f38c..e17d81231ea6 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/bcm-vk/bcm_vk_msg.c
@@ -137,11 +137,11 @@ void bcm_vk_set_host_alert(struct bcm_vk *vk, u32 bit_mask)
#define BCM_VK_HB_TIMER_VALUE (BCM_VK_HB_TIMER_S * HZ)
#define BCM_VK_HB_LOST_MAX (27 / BCM_VK_HB_TIMER_S)
-static void bcm_vk_hb_poll(struct timer_list *t)
+static void bcm_vk_hb_poll(struct work_struct *work)
{
u32 uptime_s;
- struct bcm_vk_hb_ctrl *hb = container_of(t, struct bcm_vk_hb_ctrl,
- timer);
+ struct bcm_vk_hb_ctrl *hb = container_of(to_delayed_work(work), struct bcm_vk_hb_ctrl,
+ work);
struct bcm_vk *vk = container_of(hb, struct bcm_vk, hb_ctrl);
if (bcm_vk_drv_access_ok(vk) && hb_mon_is_on()) {
@@ -177,22 +177,22 @@ static void bcm_vk_hb_poll(struct timer_list *t)
bcm_vk_set_host_alert(vk, ERR_LOG_HOST_HB_FAIL);
}
/* re-arm timer */
- mod_timer(&hb->timer, jiffies + BCM_VK_HB_TIMER_VALUE);
+ schedule_delayed_work(&hb->work, BCM_VK_HB_TIMER_VALUE);
}
void bcm_vk_hb_init(struct bcm_vk *vk)
{
struct bcm_vk_hb_ctrl *hb = &vk->hb_ctrl;
- timer_setup(&hb->timer, bcm_vk_hb_poll, 0);
- mod_timer(&hb->timer, jiffies + BCM_VK_HB_TIMER_VALUE);
+ INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&hb->work, bcm_vk_hb_poll);
+ schedule_delayed_work(&hb->work, BCM_VK_HB_TIMER_VALUE);
}
void bcm_vk_hb_deinit(struct bcm_vk *vk)
{
struct bcm_vk_hb_ctrl *hb = &vk->hb_ctrl;
- del_timer(&hb->timer);
+ cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hb->work);
}
static void bcm_vk_msgid_bitmap_clear(struct bcm_vk *vk,
--
2.17.1
next reply other threads:[~2023-06-29 18:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-29 18:29 Chengfeng Ye [this message]
2023-06-29 18:43 ` Scott Branden
2023-07-19 17:07 ` Scott Branden
2023-07-19 17:31 ` Ray Jui
2023-07-19 18:17 ` Scott Branden
2023-07-20 7:28 ` Chengfeng Ye
2023-07-19 17:10 ` Scott Branden
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230629182941.13045-1-dg573847474@gmail.com \
--to=dg573847474@gmail.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=scott.branden@broadcom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®