Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <0936d5f3-aef2-0553-408b-07b3bb47e36b@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:06:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [BUG] net: smc: possible deadlock in smc_lgr_free() and
 smc_link_down_work()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        kuba@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <11fe65b8-eda4-121e-ec32-378b918d0909@gmail.com>
From:   Karsten Graul <kgraul@linux.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
In-Reply-To: <11fe65b8-eda4-121e-ec32-378b918d0909@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 01/02/2022 08:51, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> My static analysis tool reports a possible deadlock in the smc module in Linux 5.16:
> 
> smc_lgr_free()
>   mutex_lock(&lgr->llc_conf_mutex); --> Line 1289 (Lock A)
>   smcr_link_clear()
>     smc_wr_free_link()
>       wait_event(lnk->wr_tx_wait, ...); --> Line 648 (Wait X)
> 
> smc_link_down_work()
>   mutex_lock(&lgr->llc_conf_mutex); --> Line 1683 (Lock A)
>   smcr_link_down()
>     smcr_link_clear()
>       smc_wr_free_link()
>         smc_wr_wakeup_tx_wait()
>           wake_up_all(&lnk->wr_tx_wait); --> Line 78 (Wake X)
> 
> When smc_lgr_free() is executed, "Wait X" is performed by holding "Lock A". If smc_link_down_work() is executed at this time, "Wake X" cannot be performed to wake up "Wait X" in smc_lgr_free(), because "Lock A" has been already hold by smc_lgr_free(), 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 :)

A deeper analysis showed up that this reported possible deadlock is actually not a problem.

The wait on line 648 in smc_wr.c
	wait_event(lnk->wr_tx_wait, (!atomic_read(&lnk->wr_tx_refcnt)));
waits as long as the refcount wr_tx_refcnt is not zero.

Every time when a caller stops using a link wr_tx_refcnt is decreased, and when it reaches 
zero the wr_tx_wait is woken up in smc_wr_tx_link_put() in smc_wr.h, line 70:
		if (atomic_dec_and_test(&link->wr_tx_refcnt))
			wake_up_all(&link->wr_tx_wait);

Multiple callers of smc_wr_tx_link_put() do not run under the llc_conf_mutex lock, and those
who run under this mutex are saved against the wait_event() in smc_wr_free_link().


Thank you for reporting this finding! Which tool did you use for this analysis?