[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025081451-police-playlist-3f9b@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 16:19:59 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Wang Wensheng <wangwensheng4@...wei.com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, dakr@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org,
saravanak@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
chenjun102@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] driver core: Fix concurrent problem of
deferred_probe_extend_timeout()
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 08:29:49PM +0800, Wang Wensheng wrote:
> The deferred_probe_timeout_work may be canceled forever unexpected when
> deferred_probe_extend_timeout() executes concurrently. Start with
> deferred_probe_timeout_work pending, and the problem would
> occur after the following sequence.
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> deferred_probe_extend_timeout
> -> cancel_delayed_work => true
> deferred_probe_extend_timeout
> -> cancel_delayed_wrok
> -> __cancel_work
> -> try_grab_pending
> -> schedule_delayed_work
> -> queue_delayed_work_on
> since pending bit is grabbed,
> just return without doing anything
> -> set_work_pool_and_clear_pending
> this __cancel_work return false and
> the work would never be queued again
>
> The root cause is that the PENDING_BIT of the work_struct would be set
> temporaily in __cancel_work and this bit could prevent the work_struct
> to be queued in another CPU.
>
> Use deferred_probe_mutex to protect the cancel and queue operations for
> the deferred_probe_timeout_work to fix this problem.
>
> Fixes: 2b28a1a84a0e ("driver core: Extend deferred probe timeout on driver registration")
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Wensheng <wangwensheng4@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/dd.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c
> index 13ab98e033ea..00419d2ee910 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/dd.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c
> @@ -323,6 +323,7 @@ static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(deferred_probe_timeout_work, deferred_probe_timeout_
>
> void deferred_probe_extend_timeout(void)
> {
> + guard(mutex)(&deferred_probe_mutex);
But if you grab the lock here, in the probe timeout function, the lock
will be grabbed again, causing a deadlock, right? If not, why not?
Have you run this patch with lockdep enabled?
This feels broken to me, what am I missing?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists