From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
jirislaby@kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] tty: serial: possible deadlock in uart_remove_one_port() and uart_hangup()
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2022 12:30:03 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <97667b25-11e6-d918-2468-2cf17532c3ad@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220201090740.3816-1-hdanton@sina.com>
On 2022/2/1 17:07, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:51:09 +0800 Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> On 2022/1/29 17:57, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 05:34:05PM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> My static analysis tool reports a possible deadlock in the tty driver in
>>>> Linux 5.10:
>>> 5.10 was released over a year ago and over 100 thousand changes ago.
>>> Please redo your check on 5.16 at the oldest.
>> My static analysis tool checks the tty driver in Linux 5.16, and also
>> finds this possible deadlock:
>>
>> uart_remove_one_port()
>> mutex_lock(&port->mutex); --> Line 3032 (Lock A)
>> wait_event(state->remove_wait, ...); --> Line 3034 (Wait X)
>> mutex_unlock(&port->mutex); --> Line 3036 (Unlock A)
>>
>> uart_hangup()
>> mutex_lock(&port->mutex); --> Line 1669 (Lock A)
>> uart_flush_buffer()
>> uart_port_unlock()
>> uart_port_deref()
>> wake_up(&uport->state->remove_wait); --> Line 68 (Wake X)
>> mutex_unlock(&port->mutex); --> Line 1686 (Unlock A)
>>
>> When uart_remove_one_port() is executed, "Wait X" is performed by
>> holding "Lock A". If uart_hangup() is executed at this time, "Wake X"
>> cannot be performed to wake up "Wait X" in uart_remove_one_port(),
>> because "Lock A" has been already hold by uart_remove_one_port(),
>> causing a possible deadlock.
>>
>> I am not quite sure whether this possible problem is real and how to fix
>> it if it is real.
>> Maybe we can call wait_event() before mutex_lock() in
>> uart_remove_one_port().
>> Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks :)
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Jia-Ju Bai
> Hey Jia-Ju
>
> Thank you for reporting it.
>
> In uart_flush_buffer(), uart_port_unlock() pairs with uart_port_lock()
> which bumps refcount up. OTOH no wakep is needed without refcount
> incremented, so the wakeup above in the hangup path is not waited for
> in the remove path.
Hi Hillf,
Thanks for the explanation :)
So I wonder which wait_event() can be paired with
wake_up(&uport->state->remove_wait) in uart_port_deref()?
Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-05 4:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-29 9:34 Jia-Ju Bai
2022-01-29 9:57 ` Greg KH
2022-01-29 10:01 ` Jia-Ju Bai
2022-02-01 6:51 ` Jia-Ju Bai
[not found] ` <20220201090740.3816-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2022-02-05 4:30 ` 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=97667b25-11e6-d918-2468-2cf17532c3ad@gmail.com \
--to=baijiaju1990@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
/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®