Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2023 16:28:35 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
Cc:     3chas3@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, horms@kernel.org,
        linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] atm: solos-pci: Fix potential deadlock on
 &cli_queue_lock
Message-ID: <20231006162835.79484017@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20231005074858.65082-1-dg573847474@gmail.com>
References: <20231005074858.65082-1-dg573847474@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu,  5 Oct 2023 07:48:58 +0000 Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> As &card->cli_queue_lock is acquired under softirq context along the

you say softirq here

> following call chain from solos_bh(), other acquisition of the same
> lock inside process context should disable at least bh to avoid double
> lock.
> 
> <deadlock #1>
> console_show()
> --> spin_lock(&card->cli_queue_lock)  
> <interrupt>
>    --> solos_bh()
>    --> spin_lock(&card->cli_queue_lock)  
> 
> This flaw was found by an experimental static analysis tool I am
> developing for irq-related deadlock.
> 
> To prevent the potential deadlock, the patch uses spin_lock_irqsave()
> on the card->cli_queue_lock under process context code consistently
> to prevent the possible deadlock scenario.

and irqsave here. I think you're right that it's just softirq (== bh)
that may deadlock, so no need to take the irqsave() version in process
context.
-- 
pw-bot: cr