From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751586AbdGZVWq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:22:46 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42708 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751103AbdGZVWp (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:22:45 -0400
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com D500DD79E0
Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=alex.williamson@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:22:44 -0600
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@huawei.com>
Cc: <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "wencongyang (A)" <wencongyang2@huawei.com>,
        "Wangli (T)" <wangli74@huawei.com>,
        "Wanghui (John)" <john.wanghui@huawei.com>,
        guijianfeng <guijianfeng@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: Race condition in vfio will cause deadwait
Message-ID: <20170726152244.0df19a3c@w520.home>
In-Reply-To: <4b8a662f-23fa-2777-a7ce-084a6f828f8f@huawei.com>
References: <03bf80d2-546d-614a-7af9-1f786fe01285@huawei.com>
        <4b8a662f-23fa-2777-a7ce-084a6f828f8f@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Wed, 26 Jul 2017 21:22:45 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 21:30:04 +0800
Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@huawei.com> wrote:

> From: Wen Congyang <wencongyang2@huawei.com>
> 
> Hi, Alex Williamson
> 
> When using vfio, we encounter a problem: too many lspci processes are blocked in D state.
> I analyzed all processes, and found one process is blocked in pci_dev_lock(), another
> process is blocked in vfio_del_group_put(). I checked the backtrace, and found the following
> race condition:
> 
> Process A(use sysfs to unbind the device):
> device_release_driver()
>     device_lock(dev)
>     __device_release_driver()
>         dev->bus->remove(dev) // pci_device_remove()
>             drv->remove(pci_dev) // vfio_pci_remove()
>                 vfio_del_group_dev()
>                     vfio_device_put()
>                     wait vfio_device is remove from the group. Process B gets vfio_device,
>                     so we will wait it.
> 
> Process B:
> vfio_group_fops_unl_ioctl()
>     vfio_group_get_device_fd()
>         vfio_device_get_from_name() // we get vfio_device here
>         device->ops->open() // vfio_pci_open()
>             vfio_pci_enable()
>                 pci_reset_function()
>                     pci_dev_reset(dev, 0)
>                         pci_dev_lock()
>                             pci_cfg_access_lock(dev) // After this, lspci will be blocked
>                             device_lock(&dev->dev) // the lock is hold by another process A
> 
> Now, Process A is waiting Process B, and Process B is waiting Process A.
> 
> I think we use pci_try_reset_function() to instead of pci_reset_function() can break this deadwait.

Thanks for your report and analysis, I think you're right.  Using the
trylock version of reset seems like the best approach, I've also used
lock contention as a reason to fail the open path for the user here.  I
would welcome your testing and feedback on the proposed patch:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/26/838

Thanks,
Alex