[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2a1220fc-777c-4611-9f75-3a8e07a04850@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:56:29 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Chengfeng Ye" <dg573847474@...il.com>, scott.branden@...adcom.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] misc: bcm_vk: Fix potential deadlock on &vk->ctx_lock
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023, at 13:29, 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, which reported the following
> warning when analyzing the linux kernel 6.4-rc7 release.
The timer function does not seem to be performance critical at all,
it might be nicer to just move it into process context using
a delayed workqueue instead of a timer.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists