[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB31134AD7D5D1CB5382A5052887799@DM6PR11MB3113.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:49:54 +0000
From: "Laba, SlawomirX" <slawomirx.laba@...el.com>
To: ivecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
"Piotrowski, Patryk" <patryk.piotrowski@...el.com>,
Vitaly Grinberg <vgrinber@...hat.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS"
<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net v2] iavf: Detach device during reset task
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:16 AM
> Subject: [PATCH net v2] iavf: Detach device during reset task
>
> iavf_reset_task() takes crit_lock at the beginning and holds it during whole call.
> The function subsequently calls
> iavf_init_interrupt_scheme() that grabs RTNL. Problem occurs when userspace
> initiates during the reset task any ndo callback that runs under RTNL like
> iavf_open() because some of that functions tries to take crit_lock. This leads to
> classic A-B B-A deadlock scenario.
>
> To resolve this situation the device should be detached in
> iavf_reset_task() prior taking crit_lock to avoid subsequent ndos running under
> RTNL and reattach the device at the end.
>
> Fixes: 62fe2a865e6d ("i40evf: add missing rtnl_lock() around
> i40evf_set_interrupt_capability")
> Cc: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
> Cc: Patryk Piotrowski <patryk.piotrowski@...el.com>
> Cc: SlawomirX Laba <slawomirx.laba@...el.com>
> Tested-by: Vitaly Grinberg <vgrinber@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>
>
> @@ -2884,7 +2889,7 @@ static void iavf_reset_task(struct work_struct *work)
> if (adapter->state != __IAVF_REMOVE)
> queue_work(iavf_wq, &adapter->reset_task);
>
> - return;
> + goto reset_finish;
> }
>
> while (!mutex_trylock(&adapter->client_lock))
Ivan, what do you think about this flow [1]? Shouldn't it also goto reset_finish label?
if (i == IAVF_RESET_WAIT_COMPLETE_COUNT) {
dev_err(&adapter->pdev->dev, "Reset never finished (%x)\n",
reg_val);
iavf_disable_vf(adapter);
mutex_unlock(&adapter->client_lock);
mutex_unlock(&adapter->crit_lock);
return; /* Do not attempt to reinit. It's dead, Jim. */
}
I am concerned that if the reset never finishes and iavf goes into disabled state, and then for example if driver reload operation is performed, bad things can happen.
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0-rc3/source/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/iavf/iavf_main.c#L2939
Powered by blists - more mailing lists