linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] DMA: Freescale: use spin_lock_bh instead of spin_lock

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: <533D06F2.7080702@freescale.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Apr 2014 15:00:02 +0800
From:	Hongbo Zhang <hongbo.zhang@...escale.com>
To:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
CC:	Vinod Koul <vkoul@...radead.org>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	<dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>, <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	<LeoLi@...escale.com>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] DMA: Freescale: use spin_lock_bh instead of spin_lock_irqsave


On 04/03/2014 12:35 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:08:55PM +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote:
>> On 03/29/2014 09:45 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:33:37PM +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote:
>>>> On 03/26/2014 03:01 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 13:47 +0800, hongbo.zhang@...escale.com wrote:
>>>>>> From: Hongbo Zhang <hongbo.zhang@...escale.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The usage of spin_lock_irqsave() is a stronger locking mechanism than is
>>>>>> required throughout the driver. The minimum locking required should be used
>>>>>> instead. Interrupts will be turned off and context will be saved, it is
>>>>>> unnecessary to use irqsave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch changes all instances of spin_lock_irqsave() to spin_lock_bh(). All
>>>>>> manipulation of protected fields is done using tasklet context or weaker, which
>>>>>> makes spin_lock_bh() the correct choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   /**
>>>>>> @@ -1124,11 +1120,10 @@ static irqreturn_t fsldma_chan_irq(int irq, void *data)
>>>>>>   static void dma_do_tasklet(unsigned long data)
>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>   	struct fsldma_chan *chan = (struct fsldma_chan *)data;
>>>>>> -	unsigned long flags;
>>>>>>   	chan_dbg(chan, "tasklet entry\n");
>>>>>> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->desc_lock, flags);
>>>>>> +	spin_lock_bh(&chan->desc_lock);
>>>>> okay here is the problem :(
>>>>>
>>>>> You moved to _bh variant. So if you grab the lock in rest of the code
>>>>> and irq gets triggered then here we will be spinning to grab the lock.
>>>>> So effectively you made right locking solution into deadlock situation!
>>>> If the rest code grabs lock by spin_lock_bh(), and if irq raised,
>>>> the tasklet could not be executed because it has been disabled by
>>>> the _bh variant function.
>>> yes if you are accessing resources only in tasklet and rest of the code, then
>>> _bh variant works well. The problem here is usage in irq handler
>>>
>> The name dma_do_tasklet may mislead, it is tasklet handler, not irq
>> handler, not a trigger to load tasklet.
>> the irq handler is fsldma_chan_irq, and I don't use lock in it.
> sorry my bad, i misread this as code in fsldma_chan_irq() insteadof
> dma_do_tasklet(). In that case patch is doing the right thing.
>

OK, so I will send a v2 series with only updating 3/7 soon.




--
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/