lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: UART/TTY console deadlock
Cc-ing more people

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHp75Vd8nTzmZdnhpTDChdc11zyCaSfeigbxaCpOWZ1Lv9ZBMw@mail.gmail.com

On (20/06/22 20:37), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > [ 279.759811] -> #2 (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}:
> > [ 279.759813] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x61/0x8d
> > [ 279.759813] __irq_get_desc_lock+0x65/0x89
> > [ 279.759814] __disable_irq_nosync+0x3b/0x93
> > [ 279.759814] serial8250_do_startup+0x451/0x75c
> > [ 279.759815] uart_startup+0x1b4/0x2ff
> > [ 279.759815] uart_port_activate+0x73/0xa0
> > [ 279.759815] tty_port_open+0xae/0x10a
> > [ 279.759816] uart_open+0x1b/0x26
> > [ 279.759816] tty_open+0x24d/0x3a0
> > [ 279.759817] chrdev_open+0xd5/0x1cc
> > [ 279.759817] do_dentry_open+0x299/0x3c8
> > [ 279.759817] path_openat+0x434/0x1100
> > [ 279.759818] do_filp_open+0x9b/0x10a
> > [ 279.759818] do_sys_open+0x15f/0x3d7
> > [ 279.759819] kernel_init_freeable+0x157/0x1dd
> > [ 279.759819] kernel_init+0xe/0x105
> > [ 279.759819] ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50
> > [ 279.759820]
> > [ 279.759820] -> #1 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}:
> > [ 279.759822] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x61/0x8d
> > [ 279.759822] serial8250_console_write+0xa7/0x2a0
> > [ 279.759823] console_unlock+0x3b7/0x528
> > [ 279.759823] vprintk_emit+0x111/0x17f
> > [ 279.759823] printk+0x59/0x73
> > [ 279.759824] register_console+0x336/0x3a4
> > [ 279.759824] uart_add_one_port+0x51b/0x5be
> > [ 279.759825] serial8250_register_8250_port+0x454/0x55e
> > [ 279.759825] dw8250_probe+0x4dc/0x5b9
> > [ 279.759825] platform_drv_probe+0x67/0x8b
> > [ 279.759826] really_probe+0x14a/0x422
> > [ 279.759826] driver_probe_device+0x66/0x130
> > [ 279.759827] device_driver_attach+0x42/0x5b
> > [ 279.759827] __driver_attach+0xca/0x139
> > [ 279.759827] bus_for_each_dev+0x97/0xc9
> > [ 279.759828] bus_add_driver+0x12b/0x228
> > [ 279.759828] driver_register+0x64/0xed
> > [ 279.759829] do_one_initcall+0x20c/0x4a6
> > [ 279.759829] do_initcall_level+0xb5/0xc5
> > [ 279.759829] do_basic_setup+0x4c/0x58
> > [ 279.759830] kernel_init_freeable+0x13f/0x1dd
> > [ 279.759830] kernel_init+0xe/0x105
> > [ 279.759831] ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50
> > [ 279.759831]
> > [ 279.759831] -> #0 (console_owner){-...}:
> > [ 279.759833] __lock_acquire+0x118d/0x2714
> > [ 279.759833] lock_acquire+0x203/0x258
> > [ 279.759834] console_lock_spinning_enable+0x51/0x57
> > [ 279.759834] console_unlock+0x25d/0x528
> > [ 279.759834] vprintk_emit+0x111/0x17f
> > [ 279.759835] printk+0x59/0x73
> > [ 279.759835] __report_bad_irq+0xa3/0xba
> > [ 279.759836] note_interrupt+0x19a/0x1d6
> > [ 279.759836] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x57/0x79
> > [ 279.759836] handle_irq_event+0x36/0x55
> > [ 279.759837] handle_fasteoi_irq+0xc2/0x18a
> > [ 279.759837] do_IRQ+0xb3/0x157
> > [ 279.759838] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x1d
> > [ 279.759838] cpuidle_enter_state+0x12f/0x1fd
> > [ 279.759838] cpuidle_enter+0x2e/0x3d
> > [ 279.759839] do_idle+0x1ce/0x2ce
> > [ 279.759839] cpu_startup_entry+0x1d/0x1f
> > [ 279.759840] start_kernel+0x406/0x46a
> > [ 279.759840] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0

Hmm. So this is uart->port => desc->lock vs desc->lock => uart->port

chain #1:

serial8250_do_startup()
spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock);
disable_irq_nosync(port->irq);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock)

chain #2:

__report_bad_irq()
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock)
for_each_action_of_desc()
printk()
spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock);


Breaking up chain #2 is not an option, I suppose. Those are a rather
important KERN_ERR messages, printk_deferred() will upset people badly.

So... Do we need to hold uart->port when we disable port->irq? What do we
race with? Module removal? The function bumps device PM counter (albeit
for UART_CAP_RPM ports only). But, at the same time, we do a whole bunch
of unprotected port->FOO accesses in serial8250_do_startup(). We even set
the IRQF_SHARED up->port.irqflags without grabbing the port->lock:

up->port.irqflags |= IRQF_SHARED;
spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
if (up->port.irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
disable_irq_nosync(port->irq);

IOW, can we do something like this?

---
drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c | 11 +++++++----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
index d64ca77d9cfa..ad30991e1b3b 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_port.c
@@ -2275,6 +2275,11 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)

if (port->irq && !(up->port.flags & UPF_NO_THRE_TEST)) {
unsigned char iir1;
+ bool irq_shared = up->port.irqflags & IRQF_SHARED;
+
+ if (irq_shared)
+ disable_irq_nosync(port->irq);
+
/*
* Test for UARTs that do not reassert THRE when the
* transmitter is idle and the interrupt has already
@@ -2284,8 +2289,6 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
* allow register changes to become visible.
*/
spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
- if (up->port.irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
- disable_irq_nosync(port->irq);

wait_for_xmitr(up, UART_LSR_THRE);
serial_port_out_sync(port, UART_IER, UART_IER_THRI);
@@ -2297,9 +2300,9 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
iir = serial_port_in(port, UART_IIR);
serial_port_out(port, UART_IER, 0);

- if (port->irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
- enable_irq(port->irq);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
+ if (irq_shared)
+ enable_irq(port->irq);

/*
* If the interrupt is not reasserted, or we otherwise
--
2.27.0
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-30 05:59    [W:0.081 / U:7.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site