All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>
To: Liam Girdwood <lrg@slimlogic.co.uk>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org,
	David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from regulator_enable
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:53:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1301356432-7586-1-git-send-email-collinsd@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1301356355-7546-1-git-send-email-collinsd@codeaurora.org>

Assume a regulator supply chain in which S1 supplies L2 (S1 --> L2).
It is possible to achieve deadlock using two threads if one thread
calls regulator_enable on a regulator L2 while the other thread calls
regulator_disable on S1.  This happens because _regulator_enable(L2)
holds a lock for L2 and then takes out a lock on S1.
_regulator_disable(S1) on the other hand, is called with a lock taken
for S1 and then it calls _notifier_call_chain which attempts to take a
lock for L2.  Because these locks are taken in opposite orders, deadlock
will result.

Change regulator_enable and _regulator_enable so that only one lock is
held at a time to avoid this deadlock scenario.  Rename
_regulator_enable to regulator_dev_enable to avoid confusion with other
_* functions which assume that all locks are already taken.

Signed-off-by: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c |   82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index 9fa2095..05904be 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -1279,38 +1279,54 @@ static int _regulator_can_change_status(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 		return 0;
 }
 
-/* locks held by regulator_enable() */
-static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
+/* Locks are *not* held by regulator_enable(). */
+static int regulator_dev_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 {
-	int ret, delay;
+	struct regulator_dev *supply_rdev = NULL;
+	int ret = 0, delay;
 
+	mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
 	if (rdev->use_count == 0) {
+		/*
+		 * Incrementing here removes a race condition for simultaneous
+		 * regulator_enable calls with use_count == 0.
+		 */
+		rdev->use_count++;
+		mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
+
 		/* do we need to enable the supply regulator first */
 		if (rdev->supply) {
-			mutex_lock(&rdev->supply->mutex);
-			ret = _regulator_enable(rdev->supply);
-			mutex_unlock(&rdev->supply->mutex);
+			ret = regulator_dev_enable(rdev->supply);
 			if (ret < 0) {
 				rdev_err(rdev, "failed to enable: %d\n", ret);
+				mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
+				rdev->use_count--;
+				mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
 				return ret;
 			}
+			supply_rdev = rdev->supply;
 		}
-	}
 
-	/* check voltage and requested load before enabling */
-	if (rdev->constraints &&
-	    (rdev->constraints->valid_ops_mask & REGULATOR_CHANGE_DRMS))
-		drms_uA_update(rdev);
+		mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
+		rdev->use_count--;
+
+		/* check voltage and requested load before enabling */
+		if (rdev->constraints &&
+		    (rdev->constraints->valid_ops_mask & REGULATOR_CHANGE_DRMS))
+			drms_uA_update(rdev);
 
-	if (rdev->use_count == 0) {
-		/* The regulator may on if it's not switchable or left on */
+		/* The regulator may be on if it's not switchable or left on */
 		ret = _regulator_is_enabled(rdev);
 		if (ret == -EINVAL || ret == 0) {
-			if (!_regulator_can_change_status(rdev))
-				return -EPERM;
+			if (!_regulator_can_change_status(rdev)) {
+				ret = -EPERM;
+				goto out;
+			}
 
-			if (!rdev->desc->ops->enable)
-				return -EINVAL;
+			if (!rdev->desc->ops->enable) {
+				ret = -EINVAL;
+				goto out;
+			}
 
 			/* Query before enabling in case configuration
 			 * dependant.  */
@@ -1330,7 +1346,7 @@ static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 			 * regulators can ramp together.  */
 			ret = rdev->desc->ops->enable(rdev);
 			if (ret < 0)
-				return ret;
+				goto out;
 
 			trace_regulator_enable_delay(rdev_get_name(rdev));
 
@@ -1345,14 +1361,32 @@ static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 
 		} else if (ret < 0) {
 			rdev_err(rdev, "is_enabled() failed: %d\n", ret);
-			return ret;
+			goto out;
 		}
 		/* Fallthrough on positive return values - already enabled */
+	} else {
+		/* Check voltage and requested load. */
+		if (rdev->constraints &&
+		    (rdev->constraints->valid_ops_mask & REGULATOR_CHANGE_DRMS))
+			drms_uA_update(rdev);
 	}
 
 	rdev->use_count++;
+out:
+	mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
 
-	return 0;
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		/* Enable has failed, disable supplies if necessary. */
+		while (supply_rdev != NULL) {
+			rdev = supply_rdev;
+
+			mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
+			_regulator_disable(rdev, &supply_rdev);
+			mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
+		}
+	}
+
+	return ret;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -1368,13 +1402,7 @@ static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
  */
 int regulator_enable(struct regulator *regulator)
 {
-	struct regulator_dev *rdev = regulator->rdev;
-	int ret = 0;
-
-	mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
-	ret = _regulator_enable(rdev);
-	mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
-	return ret;
+	return regulator_dev_enable(regulator->rdev);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(regulator_enable);
 
-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: collinsd@codeaurora.org (David Collins)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from regulator_enable
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:53:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1301356432-7586-1-git-send-email-collinsd@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1301356355-7546-1-git-send-email-collinsd@codeaurora.org>

Assume a regulator supply chain in which S1 supplies L2 (S1 --> L2).
It is possible to achieve deadlock using two threads if one thread
calls regulator_enable on a regulator L2 while the other thread calls
regulator_disable on S1.  This happens because _regulator_enable(L2)
holds a lock for L2 and then takes out a lock on S1.
_regulator_disable(S1) on the other hand, is called with a lock taken
for S1 and then it calls _notifier_call_chain which attempts to take a
lock for L2.  Because these locks are taken in opposite orders, deadlock
will result.

Change regulator_enable and _regulator_enable so that only one lock is
held at a time to avoid this deadlock scenario.  Rename
_regulator_enable to regulator_dev_enable to avoid confusion with other
_* functions which assume that all locks are already taken.

Signed-off-by: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c |   82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index 9fa2095..05904be 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -1279,38 +1279,54 @@ static int _regulator_can_change_status(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 		return 0;
 }
 
-/* locks held by regulator_enable() */
-static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
+/* Locks are *not* held by regulator_enable(). */
+static int regulator_dev_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 {
-	int ret, delay;
+	struct regulator_dev *supply_rdev = NULL;
+	int ret = 0, delay;
 
+	mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
 	if (rdev->use_count == 0) {
+		/*
+		 * Incrementing here removes a race condition for simultaneous
+		 * regulator_enable calls with use_count == 0.
+		 */
+		rdev->use_count++;
+		mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
+
 		/* do we need to enable the supply regulator first */
 		if (rdev->supply) {
-			mutex_lock(&rdev->supply->mutex);
-			ret = _regulator_enable(rdev->supply);
-			mutex_unlock(&rdev->supply->mutex);
+			ret = regulator_dev_enable(rdev->supply);
 			if (ret < 0) {
 				rdev_err(rdev, "failed to enable: %d\n", ret);
+				mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
+				rdev->use_count--;
+				mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
 				return ret;
 			}
+			supply_rdev = rdev->supply;
 		}
-	}
 
-	/* check voltage and requested load before enabling */
-	if (rdev->constraints &&
-	    (rdev->constraints->valid_ops_mask & REGULATOR_CHANGE_DRMS))
-		drms_uA_update(rdev);
+		mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
+		rdev->use_count--;
+
+		/* check voltage and requested load before enabling */
+		if (rdev->constraints &&
+		    (rdev->constraints->valid_ops_mask & REGULATOR_CHANGE_DRMS))
+			drms_uA_update(rdev);
 
-	if (rdev->use_count == 0) {
-		/* The regulator may on if it's not switchable or left on */
+		/* The regulator may be on if it's not switchable or left on */
 		ret = _regulator_is_enabled(rdev);
 		if (ret == -EINVAL || ret == 0) {
-			if (!_regulator_can_change_status(rdev))
-				return -EPERM;
+			if (!_regulator_can_change_status(rdev)) {
+				ret = -EPERM;
+				goto out;
+			}
 
-			if (!rdev->desc->ops->enable)
-				return -EINVAL;
+			if (!rdev->desc->ops->enable) {
+				ret = -EINVAL;
+				goto out;
+			}
 
 			/* Query before enabling in case configuration
 			 * dependant.  */
@@ -1330,7 +1346,7 @@ static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 			 * regulators can ramp together.  */
 			ret = rdev->desc->ops->enable(rdev);
 			if (ret < 0)
-				return ret;
+				goto out;
 
 			trace_regulator_enable_delay(rdev_get_name(rdev));
 
@@ -1345,14 +1361,32 @@ static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 
 		} else if (ret < 0) {
 			rdev_err(rdev, "is_enabled() failed: %d\n", ret);
-			return ret;
+			goto out;
 		}
 		/* Fallthrough on positive return values - already enabled */
+	} else {
+		/* Check voltage and requested load. */
+		if (rdev->constraints &&
+		    (rdev->constraints->valid_ops_mask & REGULATOR_CHANGE_DRMS))
+			drms_uA_update(rdev);
 	}
 
 	rdev->use_count++;
+out:
+	mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
 
-	return 0;
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		/* Enable has failed, disable supplies if necessary. */
+		while (supply_rdev != NULL) {
+			rdev = supply_rdev;
+
+			mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
+			_regulator_disable(rdev, &supply_rdev);
+			mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
+		}
+	}
+
+	return ret;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -1368,13 +1402,7 @@ static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
  */
 int regulator_enable(struct regulator *regulator)
 {
-	struct regulator_dev *rdev = regulator->rdev;
-	int ret = 0;
-
-	mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
-	ret = _regulator_enable(rdev);
-	mutex_unlock(&rdev->mutex);
-	return ret;
+	return regulator_dev_enable(regulator->rdev);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(regulator_enable);
 
-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-03-28 23:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-28 15:34 [PATCH 0/2] regulator: Fix regulator_enable deadlock and add uA_load propagation David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34 ` David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from regulator_enable David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34   ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:11   ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:11     ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:22     ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:22       ` David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] regulator: Propagate uA_load requirements up supply chain David Collins
2011-03-28 15:34   ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:02   ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:02     ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:14     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-03-28 18:14       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-03-29  7:53       ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29  7:53         ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29  8:28         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-03-29  8:28           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-03-29  8:40           ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29  8:40             ` Mark Brown
2011-03-28 18:18     ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:18       ` David Collins
2011-03-28 18:33       ` broonie@gmail.com
2011-03-28 18:33         ` broonie@gmail.com
2011-03-28 23:52 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] regulator: Fix regulator_enable deadlock and add uA_load propagation David Collins
2011-03-28 23:52   ` David Collins
2011-03-28 23:53   ` David Collins [this message]
2011-03-28 23:53     ` [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from regulator_enable David Collins
2011-03-28 23:53   ` [PATCH v2 2/2] regulator: Propagate uA_load requirements up supply chain David Collins
2011-03-28 23:53     ` David Collins
2011-03-29  8:44     ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29  8:44       ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 16:08       ` David Collins
2011-03-29 16:08         ` David Collins
2011-03-29 21:20         ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 21:20           ` Mark Brown
2011-03-30  1:00           ` Mark Brown
2011-03-30  1:00             ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 22:40     ` Mark Brown
2011-03-29 22:40       ` Mark Brown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1301356432-7586-1-git-send-email-collinsd@codeaurora.org \
    --to=collinsd@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lrg@slimlogic.co.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.