Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dmaengine: idxd: Fix race condition between WQ enable and reset paths

[Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>]

On 6/4/25 1:55 AM, Shuai Xue wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2025/6/3 22:32, Dave Jiang 写道:
>>
>>
>> On 5/27/25 7:21 PM, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>>> Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 在 2025/5/23 22:54, Dave Jiang 写道:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/22/25 10:20 PM, Shuai Xue wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 在 2025/5/22 22:55, Dave Jiang 写道:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/21/25 11:33 PM, Shuai Xue wrote:
>>>>>>>> A device reset command disables all WQs in hardware. If issued while a WQ
>>>>>>>> is being enabled, it can cause a mismatch between the software and hardware
>>>>>>>> states.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a hardware error occurs, the IDXD driver calls idxd_device_reset() to
>>>>>>>> send a reset command and clear the state (wq->state) of all WQs. It then
>>>>>>>> uses wq_enable_map (a bitmask tracking enabled WQs) to re-enable them and
>>>>>>>> ensure consistency between the software and hardware states.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, a race condition exists between the WQ enable path and the
>>>>>>>> reset/recovery path. For example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A: WQ enable path                   B: Reset and recovery path
>>>>>>>> ------------------                 ------------------------
>>>>>>>> a1. issue IDXD_CMD_ENABLE_WQ
>>>>>>>>                                       b1. issue IDXD_CMD_RESET_DEVICE
>>>>>>>>                                       b2. clear wq->state
>>>>>>>>                                       b3. check wq_enable_map bit, not set
>>>>>>>> a2. set wq->state = IDXD_WQ_ENABLED
>>>>>>>> a3. set wq_enable_map
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this case, b1 issues a reset command that disables all WQs in hardware.
>>>>>>>> Since b3 checks wq_enable_map before a2, it doesn't re-enable the WQ,
>>>>>>>> leading to an inconsistency between wq->state (software) and the actual
>>>>>>>> hardware state (IDXD_WQ_DISABLED).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would it lessen the complication to just have wq enable path grab the device lock before proceeding?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, how about add a spin lock to enable wq and reset device path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/idxd/device.c b/drivers/dma/idxd/device.c
>>>>>> index 38633ec5b60e..c0dc904b2a94 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/dma/idxd/device.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dma/idxd/device.c
>>>>>> @@ -203,6 +203,29 @@ int idxd_wq_enable(struct idxd_wq *wq)
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>    EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(idxd_wq_enable);
>>>>>>    +/*
>>>>>> + * This function enables a WQ in hareware and updates the driver maintained
>>>>>> + * wq->state to IDXD_WQ_ENABLED. It should be called with the dev_lock held
>>>>>> + * to prevent race conditions with IDXD_CMD_RESET_DEVICE, which could
>>>>>> + * otherwise disable the WQ without the driver's state being properly
>>>>>> + * updated.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * For IDXD_CMD_DISABLE_DEVICE, this function is safe because it is only
>>>>>> + * called after the WQ has been explicitly disabled, so no concurrency
>>>>>> + * issues arise.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +int idxd_wq_enable_locked(struct idxd_wq *wq)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +       struct idxd_device *idxd = wq->idxd;
>>>>>> +       int ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       spin_lock(&idxd->dev_lock);
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's start using the new cleanup macro going forward:
>>>>> guard(spinlock)(&idxd->dev_lock);
>>>>>
>>>>> On a side note, there's been a cleanup on my mind WRT this driver's locking. I think we can replace idxd->dev_lock with idxd_confdev(idxd) device lock. You can end up just do:
>>>>> guard(device)(idxd_confdev(idxd));
>>>>
>>>> Then we need to replace the lock from spinlock to mutex lock?
>>>
>>> We still need a (spin) lock that we could hold in interrupt contexts.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And also drop the wq->wq_lock and replace with wq_confdev(wq) device lock:
>>>>> guard(device)(wq_confdev(wq));
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are up for it that is.
>>>>
>>>> We creates a hierarchy: pdev -> idxd device -> wq device.
>>>> idxd_confdev(idxd) is the parent of wq_confdev(wq) because:
>>>>
>>>>       (wq_confdev(wq))->parent = idxd_confdev(idxd);
>>>>
>>>> Is it safe to grap lock of idxd_confdev(idxd) under hold
>>>> lock of wq_confdev(wq)?
>>>>
>>>> We have mounts of code use spinlock of idxd->dev_lock under
>>>> hold of wq->wq_lock.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Dave that the locking could be simplified, but I don't
>>> think that we should hold this series because of that. That
>>> simplification can be done later.
>>
>> I agree. Just passing musing on the current code.
> 
> Got it, do I need to send a separate patch for Patch 2?

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean if you need to send patch 2 again?
> 
> Thanks.
> Shuai