linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] PM / Domains: Avoid a potential deadlock

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]

Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:52:14 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@...tor.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] PM / Domains: Avoid a potential deadlock

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:45, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jiada,
>
> CC Marek, Jon, Mike, Stephen, linux-clk, linux-renesas-soc
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:51 AM Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@...tor.com> wrote:
> > Lockdep warns that prepare_lock and genpd->mlock can cause a deadlock
> > the deadlock scenario is like following:
> > First thread is probing cs2000
> > cs2000_probe()
> >   clk_register()
> >     __clk_core_init()
> >       clk_prepare_lock()                            ----> acquires prepare_lock
> >         cs2000_recalc_rate()
> >           i2c_smbus_read_byte_data()
> >             rcar_i2c_master_xfer()
> >               dma_request_chan()
> >                 rcar_dmac_of_xlate()
> >                   rcar_dmac_alloc_chan_resources()
> >                     pm_runtime_get_sync()
> >                       __pm_runtime_resume()
> >                         rpm_resume()
> >                           rpm_callback()
> >                             genpd_runtime_resume()   ----> acquires genpd->mlock
> >
> > Second thread is attaching any device to the same PM domain
> > genpd_add_device()
> >   genpd_lock()                                       ----> acquires genpd->mlock
> >     cpg_mssr_attach_dev()
> >       of_clk_get_from_provider()
> >         __of_clk_get_from_provider()
> >           __clk_create_clk()
> >             clk_prepare_lock()                       ----> acquires prepare_lock
> >
> > Since currently no PM provider access genpd's critical section
> > in .attach_dev, and .detach_dev callbacks, so there is no need to protect
> > these two callbacks with genpd->mlock.
> > This patch avoids a potential deadlock by moving out .attach_dev and .detach_dev
> > from genpd->mlock, so that genpd->mlock won't be held when prepare_lock is acquired
> > in .attach_dev and .detach_dev
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@...tor.com>
>
> Thanks a lot for your perseverance!
> I had tried putting each PM Domain in its own lockdep class, but that
> didn't help.
>
> Your patch fixes the lockdep warnings on my Salvator-X(S) boards.
>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
>
> Your solution makes sense, as the .{at,de}tach_dev() callbacks are
> owned by the individual PM Domain drivers, and not by the genpd core.
>
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
>
> One thing I'm still wondering about: genpd_add_device() is always called
> with gpd_list_lock held.
> However, the same cannot be said about genpd_remove_device():
>   - pm_genpd_remove_device() does not take gpd_list_lock, unlike
>     pm_genpd_add_device(),
>   - genpd_dev_pm_detach() does not take gpd_list_lock, while
>     __genpd_dev_pm_attach() does take the lock for adding,
>     but not for removing (in the error patch)?

That's correctly observed and it's something that needs to be fixed in
the long run. Although I am not sure that we should use the
gpd_list_lock...

There are race conditions while removing a device at the same time as
the genpd is removed. As a matter of fact, even the debugfs isn't
correctly dropped, when a genpd is removed. However, because almost
none it ever removing a genpd, this isn't a problem in practice.

Anyway, I have a TODO list for genpd (starting to be quite longe) and
this one is already on it, whatever that means. :-)

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe