All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>,
	"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	gregkh <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	sharon.dvir@intel.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: deadlock in synchronize_srcu() in debugfs?
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 10:24:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1490347486.2766.17.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1490345799.2766.15.camel@sipsolutions.net>

Hi,

On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 09:56 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 16:29 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Isn't it possible for the following to happen?
> > 
> > CPU1					CPU2
> > 
> > mutex_lock(&M); // acquires mutex
> > 					full_proxy_xyz();
> > 					srcu_read_lock(&debugfs_srcu);
> > 					real_fops->xyz();
> > 					mutex_lock(&M); // waiting for mutex
> > debugfs_remove(F);
> > synchronize_srcu(&debugfs_srcu);

> So I'm pretty sure that this can happen. I'm not convinced that it's
> happening here, but still.

I'm a bit confused, in that SRCU, of course, doesn't wait until all the
readers are done - that'd be a regular reader/writer lock or something.

However, it does (have to) wait until all the currently active read-
side sections have terminated, which still leads to a deadlock in the
example above, I think?

In his 2006 LWN article Paul wrote:

    The designer of a given subsystem is responsible for: (1) ensuring
    that SRCU read-side sleeping is bounded and (2) limiting the amount
    of memory waiting for synchronize_srcu(). [1]

In the case of debugfs files acquiring locks, (1) can't really be
guaranteed, especially if those locks can be held while doing
synchronize_srcu() [via debugfs_remove], so I still think the lockdep
annotation needs to be changed to at least have some annotation at
synchronize_srcu() time so we can detect this.

Now, I still suspect there's some other bug here in the case that I'm
seeing, because I don't actually see the "mutex_lock(&M); // waiting"
piece in the traces. I'll need to run this with some tracing on Monday
when the test guys are back from the weekend.

I'm also not sure how I can possibly fix this in debugfs in mac80211
and friends, but that's perhaps a different story. Clearly, this
debugfs patch is a good thing - the code will likely have had use-
after-free problems in this situation without it. But flagging the
potential deadlocks would make it a lot easier to find them.

johannes

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-24  9:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-23 14:54 deadlock in synchronize_srcu() in debugfs? Johannes Berg
2017-03-23 15:29 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24  8:56   ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24  9:24     ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2017-03-24 17:45       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-24 18:51         ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24 19:33           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-24 20:20             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-27 11:18               ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-23 15:36 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-23 15:47   ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-27 11:36   ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-30  7:32     ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-30  7:55       ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-30 10:27         ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-30 11:11           ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-31  9:03             ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-31  9:44               ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-16  9:51               ` [RFC PATCH 0/9] debugfs: per-file removal protection Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 1/9] debugfs: add support for more elaborate ->d_fsdata Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] debugfs: implement per-file removal protection Nicolai Stange
2017-04-18  2:23                   ` [lkp-robot] [debugfs] f3e7155d08: BUG:unable_to_handle_kernel kernel test robot
2017-04-18  2:23                     ` kernel test robot
2017-04-23 18:37                     ` Nicolai Stange
2017-04-23 18:37                       ` Nicolai Stange
2017-04-24  6:36                       ` Ye Xiaolong
2017-04-24  6:36                         ` Ye Xiaolong
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 3/9] debugfs: debugfs_real_fops(): drop __must_hold sparse annotation Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 4/9] debugfs: convert to debugfs_file_get() and -put() Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 5/9] IB/hfi1: " Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 6/9] debugfs: purge obsolete SRCU based removal protection Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 7/9] debugfs: call debugfs_real_fops() only after debugfs_file_get() Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 8/9] debugfs: defer debugfs_fsdata allocation to first usage Nicolai Stange
2017-04-18  9:36                   ` Johannes Berg
2017-05-02 20:05                     ` Nicolai Stange
2017-05-03  5:43                       ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 9/9] debugfs: free debugfs_fsdata instances Nicolai Stange
2017-04-17 16:01                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-18  9:39                     ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-18 13:31                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-18 13:40                         ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-18 15:17                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-18 15:20                             ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-18 17:19                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-23 15:37 ` deadlock in synchronize_srcu() in debugfs? Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-23 15:46   ` Johannes Berg

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=1490347486.2766.17.camel@sipsolutions.net \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=nicstange@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sharon.dvir@intel.com \
    /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.