linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] dma: actions: Fix lockdep splat for owl-dma

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: <20200428164921.GC5259@Mani-XPS-13-9360>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:19:21 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To:     Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>
Cc:     Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] dma: actions: Fix lockdep splat for owl-dma

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:56:12PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> When the kernel is build with lockdep support and the owl-dma driver is
> used, the following message is shown:
> 
> [    2.496939] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> [    2.501889] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
> [    2.507357] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> [    2.512834] CPU: 0 PID: 12 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 5.6.3+ #15
> [    2.519084] Hardware name: Generic DT based system
> [    2.523878] Workqueue: events_freezable mmc_rescan
> [    2.528681] [<801127f0>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<8010da58>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> [    2.536420] [<8010da58>] (show_stack) from [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack+0xb4/0xe0)
> [    2.543645] [<8080fbe8>] (dump_stack) from [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class+0x6f0/0x718)
> [    2.551816] [<8017efa4>] (register_lock_class) from [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire+0x78/0x25f0)
> [    2.560330] [<8017b7d0>] (__lock_acquire) from [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire+0xd8/0x1f4)
> [    2.568159] [<8017e5e4>] (lock_acquire) from [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x50)
> [    2.576589] [<80831fb0>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave) from [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending+0xbc/0x120)
> [    2.585884] [<8051b5fc>] (owl_dma_issue_pending) from [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request+0x1b0/0x390)
> [    2.594655] [<80668cbc>] (owl_mmc_request) from [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request+0x94/0xbc)
> [    2.602906] [<80650ce0>] (mmc_start_request) from [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req+0x64/0xd0)
> [    2.611245] [<80650ec0>] (mmc_wait_for_req) from [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr+0x10c/0x144)
> [    2.619669] [<8065aa10>] (mmc_app_send_scr) from [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card+0x4c/0x318)
> [    2.628092] [<80659b3c>] (mmc_sd_setup_card) from [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x104/0x430)
> [    2.636601] [<80659f0c>] (mmc_sd_init_card) from [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd+0xcc/0x16c)
> [    2.644678] [<8065a3e0>] (mmc_attach_sd) from [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan+0x3ac/0x40c)
> [    2.652332] [<8065301c>] (mmc_rescan) from [<80143244>] (process_one_work+0x2d8/0x780)
> [    2.660239] [<80143244>] (process_one_work) from [<80143730>] (worker_thread+0x44/0x598)
> [    2.668323] [<80143730>] (worker_thread) from [<8014b5f8>] (kthread+0x148/0x150)
> [    2.675708] [<8014b5f8>] (kthread) from [<801010b4>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20)
> [    2.682912] Exception stack(0xee8fdfb0 to 0xee8fdff8)
> [    2.687954] dfa0:                                     00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> [    2.696118] dfc0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> [    2.704277] dfe0: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000013 00000000
> 
> The required fix is to use spin_lock_init() on the pchan lock before
> attempting to call any spin_lock_irqsave() in owl_dma_get_pchan().
> 

Right, this is a bug. But while looking at the code now, I feel that we don't
need 'pchan->lock'. The idea was to protect 'pchan->vchan', but I think
'od->lock' is the better candidate for that since it already protects it in
'owl_dma_terminate_pchan'.

So I'd be happy if you remove the lock from 'pchan' and just directly use the
one in 'od'.

Out of curiosity, on which platform you're testing this?

Thanks,
Mani

> Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/dma/owl-dma.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c
> index c683051257fd..d9d0f0488e70 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/owl-dma.c
> @@ -1131,6 +1131,7 @@ static int owl_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  		pchan->id = i;
>  		pchan->base = od->base + OWL_DMA_CHAN_BASE(i);
> +		spin_lock_init(&pchan->lock);
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Init virtual channel */
> -- 
> 2.26.2
>