Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 12:09:08 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>
To:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Cc:     hemantk@codeaurora.org, bbhatt@codeaurora.org,
        loic.poulain@linaro.org, jhugo@codeaurora.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] bus: mhi: possible deadlock in mhi_pm_disable_transition()
 and mhi_async_power_up()
Message-ID: <20220207063908.GB1905@thinkpad>
References: <d3a94b53-0d77-dafe-ce45-f9ab23278616@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <d3a94b53-0d77-dafe-ce45-f9ab23278616@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Thanks for the report!

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 10:56:30AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> My static analysis tool reports a possible deadlock in the mhi driver in
> Linux 5.10:
> 
> mhi_async_power_up()
> ? mutex_lock(&mhi_cntrl->pm_mutex); --> Line 933 (Lock A)
> ? wait_event_timeout(mhi_cntrl->state_event, ...) --> Line 985 (Wait X)
> ? mutex_unlock(&mhi_cntrl->pm_mutex); --> Line 1040 (Unlock A)
> 
> mhi_pm_disable_transition()
> ? mutex_lock(&mhi_cntrl->pm_mutex); --> Line 463 (Lock A)
> ? wake_up_all(&mhi_cntrl->state_event); --> Line 474 (Wake X)
> ? mutex_unlock(&mhi_cntrl->pm_mutex); --> Line 524 (Unlock A)
> ? wake_up_all(&mhi_cntrl->state_event); --> Line 526 (Wake X)
> 
> When mhi_async_power_up() is executed, "Wait X" is performed by holding
> "Lock A". If mhi_pm_disable_transition() is concurrently executed at this
> time, "Wake X" cannot be performed to wake up "Wait X" in
> mhi_async_power_up(), because "Lock A" is already hold by
> mhi_async_power_up(), 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.
> 

As per the MHI design, we can be sure that mhi_pm_disable_transition() won't be
called until wait_event_timeout() completes in mhi_async_power_up(). So this
deadlock is not possible in practical.

Thanks,
Mani

> 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
> 
> 
>