[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023062851-gutter-rudder-5c2d@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:00:34 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@...il.com>
Cc: scott.branden@...adcom.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] misc: bcm_vk: Fix potential deadlock on &vk->ctx_lock
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:52:50AM +0000, Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> As &vk->ctx_lock is acquired by timer bcm_vk_hb_poll() under softirq
> context, other process context code should disable irq or bottom-half
> before acquire the same lock, otherwise deadlock could happen if the
> timer preempt the execution while the lock is held in process context
> on the same CPU.
>
> Possible deadlock scenario
> bcm_vk_open()
> -> bcm_vk_get_ctx()
> -> spin_lock(&vk->ctx_lock)
> <timer iterrupt>
> -> bcm_vk_hb_poll()
> -> bcm_vk_blk_drv_access()
> -> spin_lock_irqsave(&vk->ctx_lock, flags) (deadlock here)
>
> This flaw was found using an experimental static analysis tool we are
> developing for irq-related deadlock.
>
> The tentative patch fix the potential deadlock by spin_lock_irqsave().
how was this tested? As per the file,
Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst, you have to show this.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists