[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3572970f-f40f-5410-651a-a5e019d328d8@ispras.ru>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2022 13:54:49 +0300
From: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
To: "Starke, Daniel" <daniel.starke@...mens.com>
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>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tty: n_gsm: avoid call of sleeping functions from
atomic context
On 05.10.2022 13:47, Daniel Starke wrote:
> 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
As far as switching to tx_mutex turns out to have its own problems,
we suggest to revert it and to find another solution for the original
issue.
As it is described in commit 32dd59f ("tty: n_gsm: fix race condition in
gsmld_write()"), the issue is that gsmld_write() may be used by the user
directly and also by the n_gsm internal functions. But the proposed
solution to add a spinlock around the low side tty write is not suitable
since the tty write may sleep:
gsmld_write(...)
spin_lock_irqsave(&gsm->tx_lock, flags)
tty->ops->write(...);
con_write(...)
do_con_write(...)
console_lock()
might_sleep() // -> bug
So let's consider alternative approaches to avoid the race condition.
We have found the only potential concurrency place:
gsm->tty->ops->write() in gsmld_output() and tty->ops->write() in
gsmld_write().
Is that right? Or there are some other cases?
On 05.10.2022 13:47, Daniel Starke wrote:
> 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.
Probably splitting the TX lock would be rather complex as there is
gsm_data_kick() which in this way has to be protected by packet queue
spinlock and at the same time it contains gsmld_output() (via
gsm_send_packet()) that would require mutex protection.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists