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;
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 13:00:34 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
Cc:     scott.branden@broadcom.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
        arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] misc: bcm_vk: Fix potential deadlock on &vk->ctx_lock
Message-ID: <2023062851-gutter-rudder-5c2d@gregkh>
References: <20230628105250.40874-1-dg573847474@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230628105250.40874-1-dg573847474@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 10:52:50AM +0000, Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> As &vk->ctx_lock is acquired by timer bcm_vk_hb_poll() under softirq
> context, other process context code should disable irq or bottom-half
> before acquire the same lock, otherwise deadlock could happen if the
> timer preempt the execution while the lock is held in process context
> on the same CPU.
> 
> Possible deadlock scenario
> bcm_vk_open()
>     -> bcm_vk_get_ctx()
>     -> spin_lock(&vk->ctx_lock)
>         <timer iterrupt>
>         -> bcm_vk_hb_poll()
>         -> bcm_vk_blk_drv_access()
>         -> spin_lock_irqsave(&vk->ctx_lock, flags) (deadlock here)
> 
> This flaw was found using an experimental static analysis tool we are
> developing for irq-related deadlock.
> 
> The tentative patch fix the potential deadlock by spin_lock_irqsave().

how was this tested?  As per the file,
Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst, you have to show this.

thanks,

greg k-h