linux-kernel - Re: Possible deadlock when suspending framebuffer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BANLkTinE+EZ9nr1qGKC0VY0bVHuF8U-R0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:12:46 +0200
From:	Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>
To:	Bruno Prémont <bonbons@...ux-vserver.org>
Cc:	Wanlong Gao <wanlong.gao@...il.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Possible deadlock when suspending framebuffer

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Bruno Prémont
<bonbons@...ux-vserver.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:09:24 Wanlong Gao <wanlong.gao@...il.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Hi Francis:
>> can you test this patch?
>
> Do you have a deadlock trace which you are trying to fix?
>
> It's either the caller of unregister_framebuffer() which must be
> changed to not call unregister_framebuffer with info's lock held or
> the code reacting on the notification that must not try to acquire the
> lock again.
>
> The interesting par is if console semaphore has some relation to this
> deadlock as the order for taking both varies... It could be
> lock_fb_info(); console_lock()  versus console_lock(); lock_fb_info()
>
> Bruno
>
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> From fe026c42af4cbdce053460a428a445e99071586a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Wanlong Gao <wanlong.gao@...il.com>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:03:41 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] test
>>
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <wanlong.gao@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/video/fbmem.c |    3 ---
>>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/video/fbmem.c b/drivers/video/fbmem.c
>> index 5aac00e..6e6cef3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/video/fbmem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/video/fbmem.c
>> @@ -1642,11 +1642,8 @@ static int do_unregister_framebuffer(struct
>> fb_info *fb_info)
>>       if (i < 0 || i >= FB_MAX || registered_fb[i] != fb_info)
>>               return -EINVAL;
>>
>> -     if (!lock_fb_info(fb_info))
>> -             return -ENODEV;
>>       event.info = fb_info;
>>       ret = fb_notifier_call_chain(FB_EVENT_FB_UNBIND, &event);
>> -     unlock_fb_info(fb_info);
>
> Not a good idea to stop taking fb_lock here.
> Pretty all calls of fb_notifier_call_chain are protected by info's
> lock, except the one for FB_EVENT_FB_UNREGISTERED a few lines further.
>
> IMHO it wou make sense to add the lock around that last one so all
> notifier chain calls are handled the same.
>
>>       if (ret)
>>               return -EINVAL;
>
>

Well, sorry for the dumb question but the fb/fbcon code is pretty hard
to follow for me.

Why does store_fbstate() and any fb driver's suspsend methods acquire
the console lock at all ?

Thanks
-- 
Francis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/