From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: cdev: fix waitqueue deadlock on chip deregistration
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2026 22:57:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261105145711.GA92894@rigel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261105-gpio-cdev-srcu-deadlock-v1-1-6047117030ec@oss.qualcomm.com>
On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 03:47:59PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> The three calls to wait_event_interruptible_locked() sleep while holding
> gdev->srcu. In gpiochip_remove(), synchronize_srcu() runs before
> gcdev_unregister(). The latter fires the waitqueue wakeup events from
> the notifier callbacks, so a reader blocked on an empty FIFO never leaves
> its SRCU section and the removal will block forever in the former.
>
> Since rcu_access_pointer() is a plain READ_ONCE(), we don't really need
> to take the SRCU read lock. We don't access the chip structure after
> checking it. Remove the lock and instead make the waitqueue aware of the
> possible chip deregistration. Keep the initial gdev->chip checks as
> removing them may change the error codes visible to user-space, for
> instance in cases of a non-blocking read on an empty fifo.
>
> Ideally, we'd factor out the common code into a dedicated helper but
> there doesn't seem to exist a clean way of passing a kfifo as argument
> so let's open-code the three call sites.
>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: d83cee3d2bb1 ("gpio: protect the pointer to gpio_chip in gpio_device with SRCU")
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
> I've had it on my TODO list for a while. I vaguely remember someone
> reporting it to me but can't find the reference anymore. Please feel
> free to add a Reported-by: and Closes:.
>
Isn't this the same as patch 4/7 in Adrian's series[1]?
Cheers,
Kent.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/20261103-gpiolib-chip-removal-v5-4-aambrozewicz@nvidia.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-05 14:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-05 14:47 [PATCH] gpio: cdev: fix waitqueue deadlock on chip deregistration Bartosz Golaszewski
2026-11-05 14:57 ` Kent Gibson [this message]
2026-11-05 15:02 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
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=20261105145711.GA92894@rigel \
--to=warthog618@gmail.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bartosz.golaszewski@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=brgl@kernel.org \
--cc=linusw@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox