[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140327173344.GK18707@t520.home>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:33:44 -0300
From: Flavio Leitner <fbl@...hat.com>
To: Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
Cc: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
openvswitch <dev@...nvswitch.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] openvswitch: fix a possible deadlock and lockdep
warning
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:19:23AM -0700, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Flavio Leitner <fbl@...hat.com> wrote:
> > There are two problematic situations.
> >
> > A deadlock can happen when is_percpu is false because it can get
> > interrupted while holding the spinlock. Then it executes
> > ovs_flow_stats_update() in softirq context which tries to get
> > the same lock.
> >
> > The second sitation is that when is_percpu is true, the code
> > correctly disables BH but only for the local CPU, so the
> > following can happen when locking the remote CPU without
> > disabling BH:
> >
> > CPU#0 CPU#1
> > ovs_flow_stats_get()
> > stats_read()
> > +->spin_lock remote CPU#1 ovs_flow_stats_get()
> > | <interrupted> stats_read()
> > | ... +--> spin_lock remote CPU#0
> > | | <interrupted>
> > | ovs_flow_stats_update() | ...
> > | spin_lock local CPU#0 <--+ ovs_flow_stats_update()
> > +---------------------------------- spin_lock local CPU#1
> >
> > This patch disables BH for both cases fixing the deadlocks.
>
> This bug is already fixed in OVS.
Could you point me to the commit? I am not finding anything
recent.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists