From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Cc: perex@perex.cz, tiwai@suse.com, broonie@kernel.org,
o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] ALSA: core: possible deadlock involving waiting and locking operations
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 16:28:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5e068664-9c9e-271a-08a0-ea107554b1a5@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <s5hilu3eywp.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
On 2022/1/29 16:20, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 09:07:05 +0100,
> Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022/1/29 12:27, Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:33:26AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> My static analysis tool reports a possible deadlock in the sound driver
>>>> in Linux 5.10:
>>>>
>>>> snd_card_disconnect_sync()
>>>> spin_lock_irq(&card->files_lock); --> Line 461 (Lock A)
>>>> wait_event_lock_irq(card->remove_sleep, ...); --> Line 462 (Wait X)
>>>> spin_unlock_irq(&card->files_lock); --> Line 465 (Unlock A)
>>>>
>>>> snd_hwdep_release()
>>>> mutex_lock(&hw->open_mutex); --> Line 152 (Lock B)
>>>> mutex_unlock(&hw->open_mutex); --> Line 157 (Unlock B)
>>>> snd_card_file_remove()
>>>> wake_up_all(&card->remove_sleep); --> Line 976 (Wake X)
>>>>
>>>> snd_hwdep_open()
>>>> mutex_lock(&hw->open_mutex); --> Line 95 (Lock B)
>>>> snd_card_file_add()
>>>> spin_lock(&card->files_lock); --> Line 932 (Lock A)
>>>> spin_unlock(&card->files_lock); --> Line 940 (Unlock A)
>>>> mutex_unlock(&hw->open_mutex); --> Line 139 (Unlock B)
>>>>
>>>> When snd_card_disconnect_sync() is executed, "Wait X" is performed by
>>>> holding "Lock A". If snd_hwdep_open() is executed at this time, it holds
>>>> "Lock B" and then waits for acquiring "Lock A". If snd_hwdep_release()
>>>> is executed at this time, it waits for acquiring "Lock B", and thus
>>>> "Wake X" cannot be performed to wake up "Wait X" in
>>>> snd_card_disconnect_sync(), causing a possible deadlock.
>>>>
>>>> I am not quite sure whether this possible problem is real and how to fix
>>>> it if it is real.
>>>> Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks :)
>>> I'm interested in your report about the deadlock, and seek the cause
>>> of issue. Then I realized that we should take care of the replacement of
>>> file_operation before acquiring spinlock in snd_card_disconnect_sync().
>>>
>>> ```
>>> snd_card_disconnect_sync()
>>> ->snd_card_disconnect()
>>> ->spin_lock()
>>> ->list_for_each_entry()
>>> mfile->file->f_op = snd_shutdown_f_ops
>>> ->spin_unlock()
>>> ->spin_lock_irq()
>>> ->wait_event_lock_irq()
>>> ->spin_unlock_irq()
>>> ```
>>>
>>> The implementation of snd_shutdown_f_ops has no value for .open, therefore
>>> snd_hwdep_open() is not called anymore when waiting the event. The mutex
>>> (Lock B) is not acquired in process context of ALSA hwdep application.
>>>
>>> The original .release function can be called by snd_disconnect_release()
>>> via replaced snd_shutdown_f_ops. In the case, as you can see, the spinlock
>>> (Lock A) is not acquired.
>>>
>>> I think there are no race conditions against Lock A and B in process
>>> context of ALSA hwdep application after card disconnection. But it would
>>> be probable to overlook the other case. I would be glad to receive your
>>> check for the above procedure.
>> Thanks a lot for the quick reply :)
>> Your explanation is reasonable, because snd_shutdown_f_ops indeed has
>> no value for .open.
>>
>> However, my static analysis tool finds another possible deadlock in
>> the mentioned code:
>>
>> snd_card_disconnect_sync()
>> spin_lock_irq(&card->files_lock); --> Line 461 (Lock A)
>> wait_event_lock_irq(card->remove_sleep, ...); --> Line 462 (Wait X)
>> spin_unlock_irq(&card->files_lock); --> Line 465 (Unlock A)
>>
>> snd_hwdep_release()
>> snd_card_file_remove()
>> spin_lock(&card->files_lock); --> Line 962 (Lock A)
>> wake_up_all(&card->remove_sleep); --> Line 976 (Wake X)
>> spin_unlock(&card->files_lock); --> Line 977 (Unlock A)
>>
>> When snd_card_disconnect_sync() is executed, "Wait X" is performed by
>> holding "Lock A".
> No, it's wait_event_lock_irq(), and this helper unlocks the given lock
> during waiting and re-locks it after schedule(). See the macro
> expansion in include/linux/wait.h.
Oh, yes, you are right.
Sorry for this false positive...
I will improve my tool, thanks.
Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-29 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-29 3:33 Jia-Ju Bai
2022-01-29 4:27 ` Takashi Sakamoto
2022-01-29 8:07 ` Jia-Ju Bai
2022-01-29 8:20 ` Takashi Iwai
2022-01-29 8:28 ` Jia-Ju Bai [this message]
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=5e068664-9c9e-271a-08a0-ea107554b1a5@gmail.com \
--to=baijiaju1990@gmail.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp \
--cc=perex@perex.cz \
--cc=tiwai@suse.com \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
/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®