Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Sep 2021 18:09:09 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] staging: r8188eu: Remove _enter/_exit_critical_mutex() | From | Pavel Skripkin <> |
| |
On 9/2/21 12:32, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 01:36:56PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: >> Remove _enter_critical_mutex() and _exit_critical_mutex(). They are >> unnecessary wrappers, respectively to mutex_lock_interruptible() and >> to mutex_unlock(). They also have an odd interface that takes an unused >> argument named pirqL of type unsigned long. >> The original code enters the critical section if the mutex API is >> interrupted while waiting to acquire the lock; therefore it could lead >> to a race condition. Use mutex_lock() because it is uninterruptible and >> so avoid that above-mentioned potential race condition. >> >> Tested-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com> >> Reviewed-by: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com> >> --- >> >> v5: Fix a typo in the subject line. Reported by Aakash Hemadri. >> >> v4: Tested and reviewed by Pavel Skripkin. No changes to the code. >> >> v3: Assume that the original authors don't expect that >> mutex_lock_interruptible() can be really interrupted and then lead to >> a potential race condition. Furthermore, Greg Kroah-Hartman makes me >> notice that "[] one almost never needs interruptable locks in a driver". >> Therefore, replace the calls to mutex_lock_interruptible() with calls to >> mutex_lock() since the latter is uninterruptible and avoid race >> conditions without the necessity to handle -EINTR errors. > > Based on a recent conversation on the linux-usb mailing list, perhaps I > was wrong: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210829015825.GA297712@rowland.harvard.edu > > Can you check what happens with your change when you disconnect the > device and these code paths are being called? That is when you do want > the lock interrupted. > > Yes, the logic still seems wrong, but I don't want to see the code now > just lock up entirely with this change as it is a change in how things > work from today. >
Hi, Greg!
I've retested this patch with lockdep enabled and I actually hit a deadlock. It's really my fault to forgot about lockdep while testing v4, I am sorry about the situation.
Actually, the disconnect here is not the problem, the problem was in original code. Changing mutex_lock_interruptible to mutex_lock just helped to discover it.
The log:
[ 252.063305] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected [ 252.063642] 5.14.0+ #9 Tainted: G C [ 252.063946] -------------------------------------------- [ 252.064282] ip/335 is trying to acquire lock: [ 252.064560] ffff888009ebad28 (pmutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: usbctrl_vendorreq+0xc5/0x4a0 [r8188eu] [ 252.065168] [ 252.065168] but task is already holding lock: [ 252.065536] ffffffffc021b3b8 (pmutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: netdev_open+0x3a/0x5f [r8188eu] [ 252.066085] [ 252.066085] other info that might help us debug this: [ 252.066494] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 252.066494] [ 252.066866] CPU0 [ 252.067025] ---- [ 252.067184] lock(pmutex); [ 252.067367] lock(pmutex); [ 252.067548] [ 252.067548] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 252.067548] [ 252.067920] May be due to missing lock nesting notation [ 252.067920] [ 252.068346] 2 locks held by ip/335: [ 252.068570] #0: ffffffffbda94628 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x1e0/0x660 [ 252.069115] #1: ffffffffc021b3b8 (pmutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: netdev_open+0x3a/0x5f [r8188eu] [ 252.069690] [ 252.069690] stack backtrace: [ 252.069968] CPU: 1 PID: 335 Comm: ip Tainted: G C 5.14.0+ #9 [ 252.071111] Call Trace: [ 252.071273] dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x59 [ 252.071513] __lock_acquire.cold+0x1fe/0x31b [ 252.072709] lock_acquire+0x157/0x3c0 [ 252.074445] __mutex_lock+0xf6/0xc90 [ 252.076294] usbctrl_vendorreq+0xc5/0x4a0 [r8188eu] [ 252.076651] usb_read8+0x68/0x8f [r8188eu] [ 252.076962] ? usb_read16+0x8e/0x8e [r8188eu] [ 252.077287] _rtw_read8+0x2d/0x32 [r8188eu] [ 252.077601] HalPwrSeqCmdParsing+0x143/0x1de [r8188eu] [ 252.077979] rtl8188eu_InitPowerOn+0x5a/0xe0 [r8188eu] [ 252.078352] rtl8188eu_hal_init+0xe7/0x1008 [r8188eu] [ 252.078989] rtw_hal_init+0x38/0xb5 [r8188eu] [ 252.079317] _netdev_open+0x282/0x4db [r8188eu] [ 252.079653] netdev_open+0x42/0x5f [r8188eu]
The problem was here before, but it was race condition, rather than a deadlock: netdev_open() locks the mutex, but internally calls usb_read8().
With previous code mutex_lock_interruptible() just fails and execution goes forward. It's not correct anyway... Fabio's patch helps to discover design bug :)
Again, I am so sorry for not enabling lockdep while testing this first time...
With regards, Pavel Skripkin
| |