Re: [PATCH 1/2] iio: hrtimer-trigger: Mark hrtimer to expire in hard interrupt context

Lars-Peter Clausen
2020-08-14T05:25:07Z

On 8/13/20 4:55 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:19:57 +0200
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> writes:
>>> On 2020-08-13 11:46:30 [+0200], Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>>> If you are running with forced IRQ threads the only thing that will then
>>>> happen in the actual hard IRQ context is the launching of the IRQ threads.
>>>> Th e IRQ handler of the device driver will run in a threaded IRQ.
>>> So if it is really just the wakeup of the IRQ-thread then it should be
>>> okay.
>>> One thing: iio_trigger_poll() may invoke iio_trigger_notify_done(). This
>>> would invoke trig->ops->try_reenable callback if available.
>>> I grepped and found
>>> - bma180_trig_try_reen()
>>> It appears to perform i2c_smbus_read_byte_data() and smbus sounds
>>> sleeping. I don't know if it attempts to acquire any spinlock_t but it
>>> will be wrong on RT.
>> It's wrong even on !RT. i2c reads cannot be invoked from hard interrupt
>> context.
>>
> We would hit this (and resulting warnings) all the time if it actually
> happened, so my suspicion is that it doesn't.
>
> I think the path doesn't actually exist although it looks at first glance like it does.
>
> The interrupt can only be enabled if there is someone using the trigger.
> Thus usecount will be non zero and for at least one element
> trig->subirq[i].enabled == true
>
> So we will decrement trig->usecount in the call to iio_trigger_notify_done
> but never reach 0 thus the call to trig->ops->try_reenable never happens
> in the hard interrupt context.

I think there is a race condition here. If a consumer is disabled
concurrently with iio_trigger_poll() there is a chance that `enabled` is
false for all consumers.

The odds of this happening are very low, but there is nothing that
prevents it.

>
> It does happen later when which ever driver we triggered finishes the
> threaded part of it's handler and calls iio_trigger_notify_done, but that
> is fine.
>
> Assuming people agree with my analysis it would be good to make it explicit
> that we cannot hit the problem path.
>
> Perhaps call a new iio_trigger_notify_no_needed() that simply does
> the decrement without test, or does it with test and spits out a
> warning if we hit 0.

I think we need to re-think the whole try_reenable() functionality.
Looking at it I think there are more issues here.

For example lets say we call iio_trigger_notify_done() from the threaded
handler and try_reenable() returns true. We'd now call
iio_trigger_poll() from the threaded context, which is wrong.

There is also the issue that iio_trigger_poll() effectively can end up
calling itself recursively indefinitely via the
iio_trigger_notify_done() chain, which might not be the best thing in
hard IRQ context.