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;
Subject: Re: [BUG] staging: wfx: possible deadlock in wfx_conf_tx() and
 wfx_add_interface()
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc:     jerome.pouiller@silabs.com, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <6f489bf2-bac0-8030-7ea5-6f5c12daa568@gmail.com>
 <20220201113303.3883-1-hdanton@sina.com>
From:   Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <77de47d2-3dfb-e329-5a86-74a115de9fcd@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Feb 2022 16:34:50 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20220201113303.3883-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 2022/2/1 19:33, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 15:09:34 +0800 Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> My static analysis tool reports a possible deadlock in the wfx driver in
>> Linux 5.16:
>>
>> wfx_conf_tx()
>>     mutex_lock(&wdev->conf_mutex); --> Line 225 (Lock A)
>>     wfx_update_pm()
>>       wait_for_completion_timeout(&wvif->set_pm_mode_complete, ...); -->
>> Line 3019 (Wait X)
>>
>> wfx_add_interface()
>>     mutex_lock(&wdev->conf_mutex); --> Line 737 (Lock A)
>>     complete(&wvif->set_pm_mode_complete); --> Line 758 (Wake X)
>>
>> When wfx_conf_tx() is executed, "Wait X" is performed by holding "Lock
>> A". If wfx_add_interface() is executed at this time, "Wake X" cannot be
>> performed to wake up "Wait X" in wfx_conf_tx(), because "Lock A" has
>> been already hold by wfx_conf_tx(), causing a possible deadlock.
>> I find that "Wait X" is performed with a timeout, to relieve the
>> possible deadlock; but I think this timeout can cause inefficient execution.
>>
>> 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 :)
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Jia-Ju Bai
> Hey Jia-Ju
>
> Thank you for reporting it.
>
> Given the init_completion() prior to complete() in wfx_add_interface(),
> no waiter is waken up by the complete(), so it has nothing to do with
> the waiter in the conf path.

Hi Hillf,

Thanks for your reply and detailed explanation :)

>
> BTW if the unusual wfx init is a real use case then we can add a new helper.
>
> Mind introducing your toy to LKML? How much time have you been put in it?
> Its current status and future works?

Do you mean my static analysis tool that generated the report?
In fact, I spent 3-4 months of my part time on implementing this tool, 
which can detect deadlocks caused by locking cycles and improper 
waiting/waking operations.
This tool still reports some false positives, due to missing some 
special patterns in the kernel code, such as "init_completion() prior to 
complete()" in this false bug.
Thus, I am improving the tool to reduce false positives now.
Any suggestion on deadlock detection or the tool would be appreciated, 
thanks :)


Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai