Message-ID: <b85e54e8-5ba8-38ff-3538-f54526c67b31@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 10:30:20 +0100
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:     Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Cc:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        vkoul@...nel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soundwire: stream: fix bad unlock balance



On 23/05/2019 10:20, Sanyog Kale wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 09:43:14AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22/05/2019 17:41, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/22/19 11:25 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>>> This patch fixes below warning due to unlocking without locking.
>>>>
>>>> ?? =====================================
>>>> ?? WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!
>>>> ?? 5.1.0-16506-gc1c383a6f0a2-dirty #1523 Tainted: G?????????????? W
>>>> ?? -------------------------------------
>>>> ?? aplay/2954 is trying to release lock (&bus->msg_lock) at:
>>>> ?? do_bank_switch+0x21c/0x480
>>>> ?? but there are no more locks to release!
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> ?? drivers/soundwire/stream.c | 3 ++-
>>>> ?? 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/stream.c b/drivers/soundwire/stream.c
>>>> index 544925ff0b40..d16268f30e4f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/soundwire/stream.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/stream.c
>>>> @@ -814,7 +814,8 @@ static int do_bank_switch(struct
>>>> sdw_stream_runtime *stream)
>>>> ?????????????????????????? goto error;
>>>> ?????????????????? }
>>>> -?????????????? mutex_unlock(&bus->msg_lock);
>>>> +?????????????? if (mutex_is_locked(&bus->msg_lock))
>>>> +?????????????????????? utex_unlock(&bus->msg_lock);
>>>
>>> Does this even compile? should be mutex_unlock, no?
>>>
>>> We also may want to identify the issue in more details without pushing
>>> it under the rug. The locking mechanism is far from simple and it's
>>> likely there are a number of problems with it.
>>>
>> msg_lock is taken conditionally during multi link bank switch cases, however
>> the unlock is done unconditionally leading to this warning.
>>
>> Having a closer look show that there could be a dead lock in this path while
>> executing sdw_transfer(). And infact there is no need to take msg_lock in
>> multi link switch cases as sdw_transfer should take care of this.
>>
>> Vinod/Sanyog any reason why msg_lock is really required in this path?
>>
> 
> In case of multi link we use sdw_transfer_defer instead of sdw_transfer
> where lock is not acquired, hence lock is acquired in do_bank_switch for
> multi link. we should add same check of multi link to release lock in
> do_bank_switch.

probably we should just add the lock around the sdw_transfer_defer call 
in sdw_bank_switch()?
This should cleanup the code a bit too.

something like:

------------------------------------>cut<-----------------------------
diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/stream.c b/drivers/soundwire/stream.c
index d01060dbee96..f455af5b8151 100644
--- a/drivers/soundwire/stream.c
+++ b/drivers/soundwire/stream.c
@@ -676,10 +676,13 @@ static int sdw_bank_switch(struct sdw_bus *bus, 
int m_rt_count)
          */
         multi_link = bus->multi_link && (m_rt_count > 1);

-       if (multi_link)
+       if (multi_link) {
+               mutex_lock(&bus->msg_lock);
                 ret = sdw_transfer_defer(bus, wr_msg, &bus->defer_msg);
-       else
+               mutex_unlock(&bus->msg_lock);
+       } else {
                 ret = sdw_transfer(bus, wr_msg);
+       }

         if (ret < 0) {
                 dev_err(bus->dev, "Slave frame_ctrl reg write failed\n");
@@ -742,25 +745,19 @@ static int do_bank_switch(struct 
sdw_stream_runtime *stream)
         struct sdw_master_runtime *m_rt = NULL;
         const struct sdw_master_ops *ops;
         struct sdw_bus *bus = NULL;
-       bool multi_link = false;
         int ret = 0;

         list_for_each_entry(m_rt, &stream->master_list, stream_node) {
                 bus = m_rt->bus;
                 ops = bus->ops;

-               if (bus->multi_link) {
-                       multi_link = true;
-                       mutex_lock(&bus->msg_lock);
-               }
-
                 /* Pre-bank switch */
                 if (ops->pre_bank_switch) {
                         ret = ops->pre_bank_switch(bus);
                         if (ret < 0) {
                                 dev_err(bus->dev,
                                         "Pre bank switch op failed: 
%d\n", ret);
-                               goto msg_unlock;
+                               return ret;
                         }
                 }

@@ -814,7 +811,6 @@ static int do_bank_switch(struct sdw_stream_runtime 
*stream)
                         goto error;
                 }

-               mutex_unlock(&bus->msg_lock);
         }

         return ret;
@@ -827,16 +823,6 @@ static int do_bank_switch(struct sdw_stream_runtime 
*stream)
                 kfree(bus->defer_msg.msg);
         }

-msg_unlock:
-
-       if (multi_link) {
-               list_for_each_entry(m_rt, &stream->master_list, 
stream_node) {
-                       bus = m_rt->bus;
-                       if (mutex_is_locked(&bus->msg_lock))
-                               mutex_unlock(&bus->msg_lock);
-               }
-       }
-
         return ret;
  }

------------------------------------>cut<-----------------------------
> 
>> --srini
>>
>>>> ?????????? }
>>>> ?????????? return ret;
>>>>
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists