| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20230320144356.803762-18-robdclark@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 07:43:39 -0700
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org (open list:HIBERNATION (aka Software Suspend,
aka swsusp)), linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
Subject: [PATCH v2 17/23] PM / QoS: Fix constraints alloc vs reclaim locking
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
In the process of adding lockdep annotation for drm GPU scheduler's
job_run() to detect potential deadlock against shrinker/reclaim, I hit
this lockdep splat:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.2.0-rc8-debug+ #558 Tainted: G W
------------------------------------------------------
ring0/125 is trying to acquire lock:
ffffffd6d6ce0f28 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68
but task is already holding lock:
ffffff8087239208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #4 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8
mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44
msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178
msm_job_run+0x78/0x150
drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370
kthread+0xf0/0x100
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
-> #3 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}:
__dma_fence_might_wait+0x74/0xc0
dma_resv_lockdep+0x1f4/0x2f4
do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc
kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c
kernel_init+0x30/0x134
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
-> #2 (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}:
fs_reclaim_acquire+0x80/0xa8
slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c
__kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc
__kmalloc+0xd8/0x100
topology_parse_cpu_capacity+0x8c/0x178
get_cpu_for_node+0x88/0xc4
parse_cluster+0x1b0/0x28c
parse_cluster+0x8c/0x28c
init_cpu_topology+0x168/0x188
smp_prepare_cpus+0x24/0xf8
kernel_init_freeable+0x18c/0x34c
kernel_init+0x30/0x134
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
-> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
__fs_reclaim_acquire+0x3c/0x48
fs_reclaim_acquire+0x54/0xa8
slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c
__kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc
kmalloc_trace+0x50/0xa8
dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate+0x38/0x100
__dev_pm_qos_add_request+0xb0/0x1e8
dev_pm_qos_add_request+0x58/0x80
dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit+0x60/0x13c
register_cpu+0x12c/0x130
topology_init+0xac/0xbc
do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc
kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c
kernel_init+0x30/0x134
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
-> #0 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060
lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8
__mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8
mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44
dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68
msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70
msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0
msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178
msm_job_run+0x78/0x150
drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370
kthread+0xf0/0x100
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
dev_pm_qos_mtx --> dma_fence_map --> &gpu->active_lock
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&gpu->active_lock);
lock(dma_fence_map);
lock(&gpu->active_lock);
lock(dev_pm_qos_mtx);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by ring0/123:
#0: ffffff8087251170 (&gpu->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_job_run+0x64/0x150
#1: ffffffd00b0e57e8 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}, at: msm_job_run+0x68/0x150
#2: ffffff8087251208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178
stack backtrace:
CPU: 6 PID: 123 Comm: ring0 Not tainted 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ #559
Hardware name: Google Lazor (rev1 - 2) with LTE (DT)
Call trace:
dump_backtrace.part.0+0xb4/0xf8
show_stack+0x20/0x38
dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xd0
dump_stack+0x18/0x34
print_circular_bug+0x1b4/0x1f0
check_noncircular+0x78/0xac
__lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060
lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8
__mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8
mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44
dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68
msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70
msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0
msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178
msm_job_run+0x78/0x150
drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370
kthread+0xf0/0x100
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
The issue is that dev_pm_qos_mtx is held in the runpm suspend/resume (or
freq change) path, but it is also held across allocations that could
recurse into shrinker.
Solve this by changing dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate() into a function
that can be called unconditionally before the device qos object is
needed and before aquiring dev_pm_qos_mtx. This way the allocations can
be done without holding the mutex. In the case that we raced with
another thread to allocate the qos object, detect this *after* acquiring
the dev_pm_qos_mtx and simply free the redundant allocations.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
---
drivers/base/power/qos.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/qos.c b/drivers/base/power/qos.c
index 8e93167f1783..f3e0c6b65635 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/qos.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/qos.c
@@ -185,18 +185,24 @@ static int apply_constraint(struct dev_pm_qos_request *req,
}
/*
- * dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate
+ * dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated
* @dev: device to allocate data for
*
- * Called at the first call to add_request, for constraint data allocation
- * Must be called with the dev_pm_qos_mtx mutex held
+ * Called to ensure that devices qos is allocated, before acquiring
+ * dev_pm_qos_mtx.
*/
-static int dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(struct device *dev)
+static int dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated(struct device *dev)
{
struct dev_pm_qos *qos;
struct pm_qos_constraints *c;
struct blocking_notifier_head *n;
+ if (!dev)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev->power.qos))
+ return 0;
+
qos = kzalloc(sizeof(*qos), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!qos)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -227,10 +233,26 @@ static int dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(struct device *dev)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&qos->flags.list);
+ mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
+
+ if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev->power.qos)) {
+ /*
+ * We have raced with another task to create the qos.
+ * No biggie, just free the resources we've allocated
+ * outside of dev_pm_qos_mtx and move on with life.
+ */
+ kfree(n);
+ kfree(qos);
+ goto unlock;
+ }
+
spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
dev->power.qos = qos;
spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
+unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
+
return 0;
}
@@ -331,17 +353,15 @@ static int __dev_pm_qos_add_request(struct device *dev,
{
int ret = 0;
- if (!dev || !req || dev_pm_qos_invalid_req_type(dev, type))
+ if (!req || dev_pm_qos_invalid_req_type(dev, type))
return -EINVAL;
if (WARN(dev_pm_qos_request_active(req),
"%s() called for already added request\n", __func__))
return -EINVAL;
- if (IS_ERR(dev->power.qos))
+ if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev->power.qos))
ret = -ENODEV;
- else if (!dev->power.qos)
- ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(dev);
trace_dev_pm_qos_add_request(dev_name(dev), type, value);
if (ret)
@@ -390,6 +410,10 @@ int dev_pm_qos_add_request(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_qos_request *req,
{
int ret;
+ ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated(dev);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
ret = __dev_pm_qos_add_request(dev, req, type, value);
mutex_unlock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
@@ -537,15 +561,11 @@ int dev_pm_qos_add_notifier(struct device *dev, struct notifier_block *notifier,
{
int ret = 0;
- mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
-
- if (IS_ERR(dev->power.qos))
- ret = -ENODEV;
- else if (!dev->power.qos)
- ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(dev);
-
+ ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated(dev);
if (ret)
- goto unlock;
+ return ret;
+
+ mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
switch (type) {
case DEV_PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY:
@@ -565,7 +585,6 @@ int dev_pm_qos_add_notifier(struct device *dev, struct notifier_block *notifier,
ret = -EINVAL;
}
-unlock:
mutex_unlock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
return ret;
}
@@ -905,10 +924,13 @@ int dev_pm_qos_update_user_latency_tolerance(struct device *dev, s32 val)
{
int ret;
+ ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated(dev);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
- if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev->power.qos)
- || !dev->power.qos->latency_tolerance_req) {
+ if (!dev->power.qos->latency_tolerance_req) {
struct dev_pm_qos_request *req;
if (val < 0) {
--
2.39.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists