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;
From:   Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@gmail.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: mac-auth/MAB
 implementation
In-Reply-To: <20220323112116.q6shx2g4r23ungtc@skbuf>
References: <20220317172013.rhjvknre5w7mfmlo@skbuf>
 <86tubvk24r.fsf@gmail.com> <20220318121400.sdc4guu5m4auwoej@skbuf>
 <86pmmjieyl.fsf@gmail.com> <20220318131943.hc7z52beztqlzwfq@skbuf>
 <86a6dixnd2.fsf@gmail.com> <20220322110806.kbdb362jf6pbtqaf@skbuf>
 <86fsn90ye8.fsf@gmail.com> <20220323101643.kum3nuqctunakcfo@skbuf>
 <864k3p5437.fsf@gmail.com> <20220323112116.q6shx2g4r23ungtc@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:43:03 +0100
Message-ID: <86tuboao8o.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On ons, mar 23, 2022 at 13:21, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:57:16AM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:
>> >> >> Another issue I see, is that there is a deadlock or similar issue when
>> >> >> receiving violations and running 'bridge fdb show' (it seemed that
>> >> >> member violations also caused this, but not sure yet...), as the unit
>> >> >> freezes, not to return...
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you enabled lockdep, debug atomic sleep, detect hung tasks, things
>> >> > like that?
>> >> 
>> >> I have now determined that it is the rtnl_lock() that causes the
>> >> "deadlock". The doit() in rtnetlink.c is under rtnl_lock() and is what
>> >> takes care of getting the fdb entries when running 'bridge fdb show'. In
>> >> principle there should be no problem with this, but I don't know if some
>> >> interrupt queue is getting jammed as they are blocked from rtnetlink.c?
>> >
>> > Sorry, I forgot to respond yesterday to this.
>> > By any chance do you maybe have an AB/BA lock inversion, where from the
>> > ATU interrupt handler you do mv88e6xxx_reg_lock() -> rtnl_lock(), while
>> > from the port_fdb_dump() handler you do rtnl_lock() -> mv88e6xxx_reg_lock()?
>> 
>> If I release the mv88e6xxx_reg_lock() before calling the handler, I need
>> to get it again for the mv88e6xxx_g1_atu_loadpurge() call at least. But
>> maybe the vtu_walk also needs the mv88e6xxx_reg_lock()?
>> I could also just release the mv88e6xxx_reg_lock() before the
>> call_switchdev_notifiers() call and reacquire it immediately after?
>
> The cleanest way to go about this would be to have the call_switchdev_notifiers()
> portion of the ATU interrupt handling at the very end of mv88e6xxx_g1_atu_prob_irq_thread_fn(),
> with no hardware access needed, and therefore no reg_lock() held.

So something like?
	mv88e6xxx_reg_unlock(chip);
	rtnl_lock();
	err = call_switchdev_notifiers(SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE, brport, &info.info, NULL);
	rtnl_unlock();
	mv88e6xxx_reg_lock(chip);