[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191104212141.742196520@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:44:25 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 072/149] RDMA/iwcm: Fix a lock inversion issue
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
[ Upstream commit b66f31efbdad95ec274345721d99d1d835e6de01 ]
This patch fixes the lock inversion complaint:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
5.3.0-rc7-dbg+ #1 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
kworker/u16:6/171 is trying to acquire lock:
00000000035c6e6c (&id_priv->handler_mutex){+.+.}, at: rdma_destroy_id+0x78/0x4a0 [rdma_cm]
but task is already holding lock:
00000000bc7c307d (&id_priv->handler_mutex){+.+.}, at: iw_conn_req_handler+0x151/0x680 [rdma_cm]
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&id_priv->handler_mutex);
lock(&id_priv->handler_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
3 locks held by kworker/u16:6/171:
#0: 00000000e2eaa773 ((wq_completion)iw_cm_wq){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x472/0xac0
#1: 000000001efd357b ((work_completion)(&work->work)#3){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x476/0xac0
#2: 00000000bc7c307d (&id_priv->handler_mutex){+.+.}, at: iw_conn_req_handler+0x151/0x680 [rdma_cm]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 3 PID: 171 Comm: kworker/u16:6 Not tainted 5.3.0-rc7-dbg+ #1
Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
Workqueue: iw_cm_wq cm_work_handler [iw_cm]
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x8a/0xd6
__lock_acquire.cold+0xe1/0x24d
lock_acquire+0x106/0x240
__mutex_lock+0x12e/0xcb0
mutex_lock_nested+0x1f/0x30
rdma_destroy_id+0x78/0x4a0 [rdma_cm]
iw_conn_req_handler+0x5c9/0x680 [rdma_cm]
cm_work_handler+0xe62/0x1100 [iw_cm]
process_one_work+0x56d/0xac0
worker_thread+0x7a/0x5d0
kthread+0x1bc/0x210
ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
This is not a bug as there are actually two lock classes here.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190930231707.48259-3-bvanassche@acm.org
Fixes: de910bd92137 ("RDMA/cma: Simplify locking needed for serialization of callbacks")
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c
index 6257be21cbedd..1f373ba573b6d 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c
@@ -2270,9 +2270,10 @@ static int iw_conn_req_handler(struct iw_cm_id *cm_id,
conn_id->cm_id.iw = NULL;
cma_exch(conn_id, RDMA_CM_DESTROYING);
mutex_unlock(&conn_id->handler_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&listen_id->handler_mutex);
cma_deref_id(conn_id);
rdma_destroy_id(&conn_id->id);
- goto out;
+ return ret;
}
mutex_unlock(&conn_id->handler_mutex);
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists