Re: [PATCH v2] iwlwifi: don't call netif_napi_add() with rxq->lock held (was Re: Lockdep warning in iwl_pcie_rx_handle())

Sedat Dilek
2021-03-04T00:08:48Z

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 1:38 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@intel.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2021-03-02 at 11:34 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> >> From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
> >>
> >> We can't call netif_napi_add() with rxq-lock held, as there is a potential
> >> for deadlock as spotted by lockdep (see below). rxq->lock is not
> >> protecting anything over the netif_napi_add() codepath anyway, so let's
> >> drop it just before calling into NAPI.
> >>
> >> ========================================================
> >> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> >> 5.12.0-rc1-00002-gbada49429032 #5 Not tainted
> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> >> irq/136-iwlwifi/565 just changed the state of lock:
> >> ffff89f28433b0b0 (&rxq->lock){+.-.}-{2:2}, at:
> >> iwl_pcie_rx_handle+0x7f/0x960 [iwlwifi]
> >> but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> >> (napi_hash_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}
> >>
> >> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> >>
> >> other info that might help us debug this:
> >> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> >>
> >> CPU0 CPU1
> >> ---- ----
> >> lock(napi_hash_lock);
> >> local_irq_disable();
> >> lock(&rxq->lock);
> >> lock(napi_hash_lock);
> >> <Interrupt>
> >> lock(&rxq->lock);
> >>
> >> *** DEADLOCK ***
> >>
> >> 1 lock held by irq/136-iwlwifi/565:
> >> #0: ffff89f2b1440170 (sync_cmd_lockdep_map){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> >> iwl_pcie_irq_handler+0x5/0xb30
> >>
> >> the shortest dependencies between 2nd lock and 1st lock:
> >> -> (napi_hash_lock){+.+.}-{2:2} {
> >> HARDIRQ-ON-W at:
> >> lock_acquire+0x277/0x3d0
> >> _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> >> netif_napi_add+0x14b/0x270
> >> e1000_probe+0x2fe/0xee0 [e1000e]
> >> local_pci_probe+0x42/0x90
> >> pci_device_probe+0x10b/0x1c0
> >> really_probe+0xef/0x4b0
> >> driver_probe_device+0xde/0x150
> >> device_driver_attach+0x4f/0x60
> >> __driver_attach+0x9c/0x140
> >> bus_for_each_dev+0x79/0xc0
> >> bus_add_driver+0x18d/0x220
> >> driver_register+0x5b/0xf0
> >> do_one_initcall+0x5b/0x300
> >> do_init_module+0x5b/0x21c
> >> load_module+0x1dae/0x22c0
> >> __do_sys_finit_module+0xad/0x110
> >> do_syscall_64+0x33/0x80
> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >> SOFTIRQ-ON-W at:
> >> lock_acquire+0x277/0x3d0
> >> _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> >> netif_napi_add+0x14b/0x270
> >> e1000_probe+0x2fe/0xee0 [e1000e]
> >> local_pci_probe+0x42/0x90
> >> pci_device_probe+0x10b/0x1c0
> >> really_probe+0xef/0x4b0
> >> driver_probe_device+0xde/0x150
> >> device_driver_attach+0x4f/0x60
> >> __driver_attach+0x9c/0x140
> >> bus_for_each_dev+0x79/0xc0
> >> bus_add_driver+0x18d/0x220
> >> driver_register+0x5b/0xf0
> >> do_one_initcall+0x5b/0x300
> >> do_init_module+0x5b/0x21c
> >> load_module+0x1dae/0x22c0
> >> __do_sys_finit_module+0xad/0x110
> >> do_syscall_64+0x33/0x80
> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >> INITIAL USE at:
> >> lock_acquire+0x277/0x3d0
> >> _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> >> netif_napi_add+0x14b/0x270
> >> e1000_probe+0x2fe/0xee0 [e1000e]
> >> local_pci_probe+0x42/0x90
> >> pci_device_probe+0x10b/0x1c0
> >> really_probe+0xef/0x4b0
> >> driver_probe_device+0xde/0x150
> >> device_driver_attach+0x4f/0x60
> >> __driver_attach+0x9c/0x140
> >> bus_for_each_dev+0x79/0xc0
> >> bus_add_driver+0x18d/0x220
> >> driver_register+0x5b/0xf0
> >> do_one_initcall+0x5b/0x300
> >> do_init_module+0x5b/0x21c
> >> load_module+0x1dae/0x22c0
> >> __do_sys_finit_module+0xad/0x110
> >> do_syscall_64+0x33/0x80
> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >> }
> >> ... key at: [<ffffffffae84ef38>] napi_hash_lock+0x18/0x40
> >> ... acquired at:
> >> _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> >> netif_napi_add+0x14b/0x270
> >> _iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x1f4/0x710 [iwlwifi]
> >> iwl_pcie_rx_init+0x1b/0x3b0 [iwlwifi]
> >> iwl_trans_pcie_start_fw+0x2ac/0x6a0 [iwlwifi]
> >> iwl_mvm_load_ucode_wait_alive+0x116/0x460 [iwlmvm]
> >> iwl_run_init_mvm_ucode+0xa4/0x3a0 [iwlmvm]
> >> iwl_op_mode_mvm_start+0x9ed/0xbf0 [iwlmvm]
> >> _iwl_op_mode_start.isra.4+0x42/0x80 [iwlwifi]
> >> iwl_opmode_register+0x71/0xe0 [iwlwifi]
> >> iwl_mvm_init+0x34/0x1000 [iwlmvm]
> >> do_one_initcall+0x5b/0x300
> >> do_init_module+0x5b/0x21c
> >> load_module+0x1dae/0x22c0
> >> __do_sys_finit_module+0xad/0x110
> >> do_syscall_64+0x33/0x80
> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> >>
> >> [ ... lockdep output trimmed .... ]
> >>
> >> Fixes: 25edc8f259c7106 ("iwlwifi: pcie: properly implement NAPI")
> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> v1->v2: Previous patch was not refreshed against current code-base, sorry.
> >>
> >> drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/rx.c | 3 ++-
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Jiri! Let's take your patch since you already sent it out.
> >
> > Kalle, can you please take this directly to wireless-drivers.git?
> >
> > Acked-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
>
> Ok but I don't see this either in patchwork or lore, hopefully it shows
> up later.
>

Is that intended to have a subject like...?

iwlwifi: don't call netif_napi_add() with rxq->lock held (was Re:
Lockdep warning in iwl_pcie_rx_handle())

- Sedat -

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers.git/commit/?id=295d4cd82b0181dd36b145fd535c13d623d7a335