Message-ID: <070af4cf-0fc7-4a76-7bdb-d182d0b0b3b4@quicinc.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:26:56 -0700
From:   Chris Lew <quic_clew@...cinc.com>
To:     Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>,
        Praveenkumar I <quic_ipkumar@...cinc.com>
CC:     <agross@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <quic_varada@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: qmi: Signal the txn completion after releasing
 the mutex



On 8/2/2023 1:07 AM, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/2/2023 5:11 AM, Chris Lew wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/2023 4:13 AM, Sricharan Ramabadhran wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 8/1/2023 6:06 AM, Chris Lew wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/31/2023 8:19 AM, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 06:37:55PM +0530, Praveenkumar I wrote:
>>>>>> txn is in #1 stack
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Worker #1                                       Worker #2
>>>>>> ********                    *********
>>>>>>
>>>>>> qmi_txn_wait(txn)                               qmi_handle_message
>>>>>>     |                                                  |
>>>>>>     |                                                  |
>>>>>>   wait_for_complete(txn->complete)                    ....
>>>>>>     | mutex_lock(txn->lock)
>>>>>>     |                                                  |
>>>>>>   mutex_lock(txn->lock)                                |
>>>>>>     .....                                         complete(txn->lock)
>>>>>>     | mutex_unlock(txn->lock)
>>>>>>     |
>>>>>>   mutex_unlock(txn->lock)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case above, while #2 is doing the mutex_unlock(txn->lock),
>>>>>> in between releasing lock and doing other lock related wakeup, #2 
>>>>>> gets
>>>>>> scheduled out. As a result #1, acquires the lock, unlocks, also
>>>>>> frees the txn also (where the lock resides)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now #2, gets scheduled again and tries to do the rest of the lock
>>>>>> related wakeup, but lock itself is invalid because txn itself is 
>>>>>> gone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixing this, by doing the mutex_unlock(txn->lock) first and then
>>>>>> complete(txn->lock) in #2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 3830d0771ef6 ("soc: qcom: Introduce QMI helpers")
>>>>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan Ramabadhran <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Praveenkumar I <quic_ipkumar@...cinc.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   drivers/soc/qcom/qmi_interface.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/qmi_interface.c 
>>>>>> b/drivers/soc/qcom/qmi_interface.c
>>>>>> index 78d7361fdcf2..92e29db97359 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/qmi_interface.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/qmi_interface.c
>>>>>> @@ -505,12 +505,13 @@ static void qmi_handle_message(struct 
>>>>>> qmi_handle *qmi,
>>>>>>                   pr_err("failed to decode incoming message\n");
>>>>>>               txn->result = ret;
>>>>>> -            complete(&txn->completion);
>>>>>>           } else  {
>>>>>>               qmi_invoke_handler(qmi, sq, txn, buf, len);
>>>>>>           }
>>>>>>           mutex_unlock(&txn->lock);
>>>>>> +        if (txn->dest && txn->ei)
>>>>>> +            complete(&txn->completion);
>>>>>>       } else {
>>>>>>           /* Create a txn based on the txn_id of the incoming 
>>>>>> message */
>>>>>>           memset(&tmp_txn, 0, sizeof(tmp_txn));
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens in a remote scenario where the waiter gets timed out 
>>>>> at the
>>>>> very same time you are releasing the mutex but before calling
>>>>> complete()? The caller might end up freeing txn structure and it 
>>>>> results
>>>>> in the same issue you are currently facing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Pavan
>>>>
>>>> I think downstream we had various attempts of moving the signal 
>>>> around trying to avoid this, but hit scenarios like the one Pavan 
>>>> described.
>>>>
>>>> We eventually settled on removing the txn->lock and treating the 
>>>> qmi->txn_lock as a big lock. This remedied the issue where the 
>>>> txn->lock goes out of scope since qmi->txn_lock is tied to the qmi 
>>>> handle.
>>>>
>>>
>>>   ok agree. Using qmi->txn_lock looks a better approach.
>>>   That said, this race between mutex lock/unlock looks odd though.
>>>   If i remember we saw the issue only with CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC.
>>>   Was that the same case for you guys as well ?
>>>
>>>   Otherwise, ideally handling all members of the object inside lock
>>>   should be the right solution (ie moving the wait_for_complete(txn)
>>>   inside the mutex_lock in qmi_txn_wait. That should take care of the
>>>   scenario that Pavan described too.
>>>
>>
>> No, we saw the issue even without CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC. The 
>> callstacks always ended up showing that the mutex could be acquired 
>> before mutex_unlock() completely finished.
>>
>> It didn't seem wise to poke at the mutex implementation so we went 
>> with the txn_lock.
> 
>   ok, that's strange. That effectively means, mutex_lock/unlock are not
>   working/protecting the critical section ? Then qmi->txn_lock also would
>   result in a similar issue ? I guess, in this case, during issue, txn
>   (which holds the lock) was going out of context, while still the txn
>   was in used in other thread. That effectively shows up a mutex issue
>   maybe. While the downstream change to use qmi->txn_lock would fix the
>   mutex issue, will have to check if the txn object itself is protected
>   correctly.
> 

Looked into this a bit more, I think the mutex was going into 
__mutex_unlock_slowpath because there is a waiter on the txn->lock. In 
the slow path there are two sections of the code, one where we release 
the owner and another where we notify waiters. It doesn't look like 
there is anything to prevent preemption between the two sections.

/kernel/locking/mutex.c

static noinline void __sched __mutex_unlock_slowpath(struct mutex *lock, 
unsigned long ip)
{
...
/*
  * Release the lock before (potentially) taking the spinlock such that
  * other contenders can get on with things ASAP.
  *
  * Except when HANDOFF, in that case we must not clear the owner field,
  * but instead set it to the top waiter.
  */

A mutex is able to guarantee mutual exclusion on the critical sections 
that we enclose in locks. It is not able to guarantee the lifetime of a 
object, that would have to be done through a kref like mechanism or code 
organization. In this case relying on qmi->txn_lock() would be relying 
on code organization to guarantee it won't go out of scope/be freed.

Thanks,
Chris

> Regards,
>   Sricharan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists