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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1649310812.git.duoming@zju.edu.cn> <9ca3ab0b40c875b6019f32f031c68a1ae80dd73a.1649310812.git.duoming@zju.edu.cn>
In-Reply-To: <9ca3ab0b40c875b6019f32f031c68a1ae80dd73a.1649310812.git.duoming@zju.edu.cn>
From:   Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 00:21:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMo8BfLG_u2z2HwY9Qo6cFgNoSrrz2mS2iD+rtj-uyrKhZYmLw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] arch: xtensa: platforms: Fix deadlock in rs_close()
To:     Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>, mustafa.ismail@intel.com,
        shiraz.saleem@intel.com, jgg@ziepe.ca, wg@grandegger.com,
        mkl@pengutronix.de, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, pabeni@redhat.com,
        jes@trained-monkey.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>, alexander.deucher@amd.com,
        "open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)" 
        <linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-can@vger.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-hippi@sunsite.dk, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Duoming,

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 11:38 PM Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> There is a deadlock in rs_close(), which is shown
> below:
>
>    (Thread 1)              |      (Thread 2)
>                            | rs_open()
> rs_close()                 |  mod_timer()
>  spin_lock_bh() //(1)      |  (wait a time)
>  ...                       | rs_poll()
>  del_timer_sync()          |  spin_lock() //(2)
>  (wait timer to stop)      |  ...
>
> We hold timer_lock in position (1) of thread 1 and
> use del_timer_sync() to wait timer to stop, but timer handler
> also need timer_lock in position (2) of thread 2.
> As a result, rs_close() will block forever.

I agree with this.

> This patch extracts del_timer_sync() from the protection of
> spin_lock_bh(), which could let timer handler to obtain
> the needed lock.

Looking at the timer_lock I don't really understand what it protects.
It looks like it is not needed at all.

Also, I see that rs_poll rewinds the timer regardless of whether del_timer_sync
was called or not, which violates del_timer_sync requirements.

> Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@zju.edu.cn>
> ---
>  arch/xtensa/platforms/iss/console.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/xtensa/platforms/iss/console.c b/arch/xtensa/platforms/iss/console.c
> index 81d7c7e8f7e..d431b61ae3c 100644
> --- a/arch/xtensa/platforms/iss/console.c
> +++ b/arch/xtensa/platforms/iss/console.c
> @@ -51,8 +51,10 @@ static int rs_open(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file * filp)
>  static void rs_close(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file * filp)
>  {
>         spin_lock_bh(&timer_lock);
> -       if (tty->count == 1)
> +       if (tty->count == 1) {
> +               spin_unlock_bh(&timer_lock);
>                 del_timer_sync(&serial_timer);
> +       }
>         spin_unlock_bh(&timer_lock);

Now in case tty->count == 1 the timer_lock would be unlocked twice.

-- 
Thanks.
-- Max