[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10008665-3a91-f95e-7ecb-994b8e8bcf55@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:32:31 +0800
From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
To: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>, tariqt@...dia.com,
davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] net: mellanox: mlx4: possible deadlock in mlx4_xdp_set()
and mlx4_en_reset_config()
On 2022/2/9 18:21, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>
>
> On 2/7/2022 5:16 PM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> My static analysis tool reports a possible deadlock in the mlx4
>> driver in Linux 5.16:
>>
>
> Hi Jia-Ju,
> Thanks for your email.
>
> Which static analysis tool do you use? Is it standard one?
Hi Tariq,
Thanks for the reply and explanation :)
I developed this tool by myself, based on LLVM.
>
>> mlx4_xdp_set()
>> mutex_lock(&mdev->state_lock); --> Line 2778 (Lock A)
>> mlx4_en_try_alloc_resources()
>> mlx4_en_alloc_resources()
>> mlx4_en_destroy_tx_ring()
>> mlx4_qp_free()
>> wait_for_completion(&qp->free); --> Line 528 (Wait X)
>
> The refcount_dec_and_test(&qp->refcount)) in mlx4_qp_free() pairs with
> refcount_set(&qp->refcount, 1); in mlx4_qp_alloc.
> mlx4_qp_event increases and decreasing the refcount while running
> qp->event(qp, event_type); to protect it from being freed.
>
>>
>> mlx4_en_reset_config()
>> mutex_lock(&mdev->state_lock); --> Line 3522 (Lock A)
>> mlx4_en_try_alloc_resources()
>> mlx4_en_alloc_resources()
>> mlx4_en_destroy_tx_ring()
>> mlx4_qp_free()
>> complete(&qp->free); --> Line 527 (Wake X)
>>
>> When mlx4_xdp_set() is executed, "Wait X" is performed by holding
>> "Lock A". If mlx4_en_reset_config() is executed at this time, "Wake
>> X" cannot be performed to wake up "Wait X" in mlx4_xdp_set(), because
>> "Lock A" has been already hold by mlx4_xdp_set(), causing a possible
>> deadlock.
>>
>> I am not quite sure whether this possible problem is real and how to
>> fix it if it is real.
>> Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks :)
>>
>
> Not possible.
> These are two different qps, maintaining two different instances of
> refcount and complete, following the behavior I described above.
Okay, "there are two different qps" should be the reason of this false
positive, and my tool cannot identify this reason in static analysis...
Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists