lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH net 4/4] hv_netvsc: avoid deadlocks between rtnl lock and netvsc_inject_disable()
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vitaly Kuznetsov [mailto:vkuznets@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:59 AM
> To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: devel@linuxdriverproject.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Haiyang
> Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>; KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>
> Subject: [PATCH net 4/4] hv_netvsc: avoid deadlocks between rtnl lock and
> netvsc_inject_disable()
>
> Here is a deadlock scenario:
> - netvsc_vf_up() schedules netvsc_notify_peers() work and quits.
> - netvsc_vf_down() runs before netvsc_notify_peers() gets executed. As it
> is being executed from netdev notifier chain we hold rtnl lock when we
> get here.
> - we enter netvsc_inject_disable() and loop and wait till
> netvsc_notify_peers() drops vf_use_cnt.
> - netvsc_notify_peers() starts on some other CPU but netdev_notify_peers()
> will hang on rtnl_lock().
> - deadlock!
>
> Similar deadlocks are possible between netvsc_vf_{up,down}() and
> netvsc_unregister_vf() as it also waits till vf_use_cnt drops to zero.
> Instead of introducing additional synchronization I suggest we drop
> gwrk.dwrk completely and call NETDEV_NOTIFY_PEERS directly. As we're
> acting under rtnl lock this is legitimate.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>

Acked-by: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-08-11 19:41    [W:0.132 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site