linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] gpio: thunderx: avoid 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]

Message-ID: <20220525131738.GA10532@Dell2s-9>
Date:   Wed, 25 May 2022 06:17:38 -0700
From:   Piyush Malgujar <pmalgujar@...vell.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
CC:     "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, <cchavva@...vell.com>,
        <wsadowski@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] gpio: thunderx: avoid potential deadlock

On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 01:18:49PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:46 PM Piyush Malgujar <pmalgujar@...vell.com> wrote:
> >
> > Using irqsave/irqrestore locking variants to avoid any deadlock.
> >
> 
> I see you'll be resending this anyway so would you mind providing an
> example of a deadlock that is possible with no-irqsave variants?
> Thanks.
> 
> Bart
>
Hi Bartosz,

Thanks for the review.

Please find below the issue scenario:
In the case when HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order is detected
and interrupt occurs, deadlock could occur.

========================================================
WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
5.18.0-rc6 #4 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------------------
swapper/3/0 just changed the state of lock:
ffff000110904cd8 (lock_class){-...}-{2:2}, at: handle_fasteoi_ack_irq+0x2c/0x1b0
but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
 (&txgpio->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}


and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.


other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&txgpio->lock);
                               local_irq_disable();
                               lock(lock_class);
                               lock(&txgpio->lock);
  <Interrupt>
    lock(lock_class);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

==========================================================

Thanks,
Piyush
> > Signed-off-by: Piyush Malgujar <pmalgujar@...vell.com>
> > ---