[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f5295c1-d787-84a5-1b3e-813f96dd4ae2@gaisler.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:47:12 +0200
From: Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>
To: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: wg@...ndegger.com, mkl@...gutronix.de, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, linux-can@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] drivers: net: can: Fix deadlock in grcan_close()
On 2022-04-26 21:12, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 25.04.22 06:24, Duoming Zhou wrote:
>> There are deadlocks caused by del_timer_sync(&priv->hang_timer)
>> and del_timer_sync(&priv->rr_timer) in grcan_close(), one of
>> the deadlocks are shown below:
>>
>> (Thread 1) | (Thread 2)
>> | grcan_reset_timer()
>> grcan_close() | mod_timer()
>> spin_lock_irqsave() //(1) | (wait a time)
>> ... | grcan_initiate_running_reset()
>> del_timer_sync() | spin_lock_irqsave() //(2)
>> (wait timer to stop) | ...
>>
>> We hold priv->lock in position (1) of thread 1 and use
>> del_timer_sync() to wait timer to stop, but timer handler
>> also need priv->lock in position (2) of thread 2.
>> As a result, grcan_close() will block forever.
>>
>> This patch extracts del_timer_sync() from the protection of
>> spin_lock_irqsave(), which could let timer handler to obtain
>> the needed lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/can/grcan.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/grcan.c b/drivers/net/can/grcan.c
>> index d0c5a7a60da..1189057b5d6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/can/grcan.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/grcan.c
>> @@ -1102,8 +1102,10 @@ static int grcan_close(struct net_device *dev)
>> priv->closing = true;
>> if (priv->need_txbug_workaround) {
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->lock, flags);
>> del_timer_sync(&priv->hang_timer);
>> del_timer_sync(&priv->rr_timer);
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->lock, flags);
>
> It looks weird to unlock and re-lock the operations like this. This
> breaks the intended locking for the closing process.
>
> Isn't there any possibility to e.g. move that entire if-section before
> the lock?
All functions wishing to start the timers both check priv->closing and
then, if false, start the timer within the priv->lock spinlock. Given
that, it should be ok that del_timer_sync is not done within the
spinlock as therefore no one can restart any timers after priv->closing
has been set to true.
It looks a bit weird, but setting priv->closing to true needs to happen
within the priv->lock spinlock protection and needs to happen before
del_timer_sync to avoid a race between grcan_close and someone starting
the timer.
Reviewed-by: Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>
--
Andreas Larsson
Powered by blists - more mailing lists