From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tbaicar@codeaurora.org (Tyler Baicar) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 11:38:16 -0400 Subject: [PATCH v3 07/12] ACPI / APEI: Make the nmi_fixmap_idx per-ghes to allow multiple in_nmi() users In-Reply-To: <20180516110348.GA17092@pd.tnic> References: <20180427153510.5799-1-james.morse@arm.com> <20180427153510.5799-8-james.morse@arm.com> <20180505122719.GE3708@pd.tnic> <1511cfcc-dcd1-b3c5-01c7-6b6b8fb65b05@arm.com> <20180516110348.GA17092@pd.tnic> Message-ID: <39bde8c5-4dfb-c1b9-02a4-ba467539ea24@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 5/16/2018 7:05 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 09:45:01AM +0100, James Morse wrote: >> Alternatively, I can put the fixmap-page and spinlock in some 'struct >> ghes_notification' that only the NMI-like struct-ghes need. This is just moving >> the indirection up a level, but it does pair the lock with the thing it locks, >> and gets rid of assigning spinlock pointers. > Keeping the lock and what it protects in one place certainly sounds > better. I guess you could so something like this: > > struct ghes_fixmap { > union { > raw_spinlock_t nmi_lock; > spinlock_t lock; > }; > void __iomem *(map)(struct ghes_fixmap *); > }; > > and assign the proper ghes_ioremap function to ->map. > > The spin_lock_irqsave() call in ghes_copy_tofrom_phys() is kinda > questionable. Because we should have disabled interrupts so that you can > do > > spin_lock(map->lock); > > Except that we do get called with IRQs on and looking at that call of > ghes_proc() at the end of ghes_probe(), that's a deadlock waiting to > happen. > > And that comes from: > > 77b246b32b2c ("acpi: apei: check for pending errors when probing GHES entries") > > Tyler, this can't work in any context: imagine the GHES NMI or IRQ or > the timer fires while that ghes_proc() runs... > > What's up? Hello Boris, I haven't seen a deadlock from that, but it looks possible. What if the ghes_proc() call in ghes_probe() is moved before the second switch statement? That way it is before the NMI/IRQ/poll is setup. At quick glance I think that should avoid the deadlock and still provide the functionality that call was added for. I can test that out if you all agree. Thanks, Tyler -- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.