Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:01:20 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
Cc:     jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/sched: use spin_lock_bh() on &gact->tcf_lock
Message-ID: <20231004170120.1c80b3b4@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230926182625.72475-1-dg573847474@gmail.com>
References: <20230926182625.72475-1-dg573847474@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 18:26:25 +0000 Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> I find tcf_gate_act() acquires &gact->tcf_lock without disable
> bh explicitly, as gact->tcf_lock is acquired inside timer under
> softirq context, if tcf_gate_act() is not called with bh disable
> by default or under softirq context(which I am not sure as I cannot
> find corresponding documentation), then it could be the following 
> deadlocks.
> 
> tcf_gate_act()
> --> spin_loc(&gact->tcf_lock)  
> <interrupt>
>    --> gate_timer_func()
>    --> spin_lock(&gact->tcf_lock)  

This is a TC action, I don't think it can run without BH being already
disabled, can it?
-- 
pw-bot: cr