[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DB9PR10MB58814C87D370B045EFB6682EE05D9@DB9PR10MB5881.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2022 10:47:44 +0000
From: "Starke, Daniel" <daniel.starke@...mens.com>
To: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
"ldv-project@...uxtesting.org" <ldv-project@...uxtesting.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] tty: n_gsm: avoid call of sleeping functions from
atomic context
> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&gsm->tx_lock, flags) // taken a spinlock on TX data
> >> con_write(...)
> >> do_con_write(...)
> >> console_lock()
> >> might_sleep() // -> bug
> >>
> >> As far as console_lock() might sleep it should not be called with
> >> spinlock held.
> >>
> >> The patch replaces tx_lock spinlock with mutex in order to avoid the
> >> problem.
> >>
> >
> > Do you have any hints why this might be correct?
> >
>
> The thing you've pointed out is actually interesting. Mutex works well in
> gsmld_write() but apparently I've missed the other contexts like in
> gsmld_receive_buf().
This patch breaks packet retransmission. Basically tx_lock and now tx_mutex
protects the transmission packet queue. This works fine as long as packets
are transmitted in a context that allows sleep. However, the retransmission
timer T2 is called from soft IRQ context and spans an additional atomic
context via control_lock within gsm_control_retransmit(). The call path
looks like this:
gsm_control_retransmit()
spin_lock_irqsave(&gsm->control_lock, flags)
gsm_control_transmit()
gsm_data_queue()
mutex_lock(&gsm->tx_mutex) // -> sleep in atomic context
I found this issue while merging our keep alive function.
Long story short: The patch via mutex does not solve the issue. It is only
shifted to another function. I suggest splitting the TX lock into packet
queue lock and underlying tty write mutex.
I would have implemented the patch if I had means to verify it.
Best regards,
Daniel Starke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists