Re: possible deadlock in __ata_sff_interrupt

[Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 03:54:09PM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:39:21PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > [Boqun Feng Cc'd]
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 03:26:21AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:41 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > CPU1: ptrace(2)
> > > >         ptrace_check_attach()
> > > >                 read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > >
> > > > CPU2: setpgid(2)
> > > >         write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> > > >         spins
> > > >
> > > > CPU1: takes an interrupt that would call kill_fasync().  grep and the
> > > > first instance of kill_fasync() is in hpet_interrupt() - it's not
> > > > something exotic.  IRQs disabled on CPU2 won't stop it.
> > > >         kill_fasync(..., SIGIO, ...)
> > > >                 kill_fasync_rcu()
> > > >                         read_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock, flags);
> > > >                         send_sigio()
> > > >                                 read_lock_irqsave(&fown->lock, flags);
> > > >                                 read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > >
> > > > ... and CPU1 spins as well.
> > > 
> > > Nope. See kernel/locking/qrwlock.c:
> > 
> > [snip rwlocks are inherently unfair, queued ones are somewhat milder, but
> > all implementations have writers-starving behaviour for read_lock() at least
> > when in_interrupt()]
> > 
> > D'oh...  Consider requested "Al, you are a moron" duly delivered...  I plead
> > having been on way too low caffeine and too little sleep ;-/
> > 
> > Looking at the original report, looks like the scenario there is meant to be
> > the following:
> > 
> > CPU1: read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
> > 	tasklist_lock grabbed
> > 
> > CPU2: get an sg write(2) feeding request to libata; host->lock is taken,
> > 	request is immediately completed and scsi_done() is about to be called.
> > 	host->lock grabbed
> > 
> > CPU3: write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
> > 	spins on tasklist_lock until CPU1 gets through.
> > 
> > CPU2: get around to kill_fasync() called by sg_rq_end_io() and to grabbing
> > 	tasklist_lock inside send_sigio()
> > 	spins, since it's not in an interrupt and there's a pending writer
> > 	host->lock is held, spin until CPU3 gets through.
> 
> Right, for a reader not in_interrupt(), it may be blocked by a random
> waiting writer because of the fairness, even the lock is currently held
> by a reader:
> 
> 	CPU 1			CPU 2		CPU 3
> 	read_lock(&tasklist_lock); // get the lock
> 
> 						write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); // wait for the lock
> 
> 				read_lock(&tasklist_lock); // cannot get the lock because of the fairness

IOW, any caller of scsi_done() from non-interrupt context while
holding a spinlock that is also taken in an interrupt...

And we have drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c:scsi_send_eh_cmnd(), which calls
->queuecommand() under a mutex, with
#define DEF_SCSI_QCMD(func_name) \
        int func_name(struct Scsi_Host *shost, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)   \
        {                                                               \
                unsigned long irq_flags;                                \
                int rc;                                                 \
                spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, irq_flags);         \
                rc = func_name##_lck(cmd);                              \
                spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, irq_flags);    \
                return rc;                                              \
        }

being commonly used for ->queuecommand() instances.  So any scsi_done()
in foo_lck() (quite a few of such) + use of ->host_lock in interrupt
for the same driver (also common)...

I wonder why that hadn't triggered the same warning a long time
ago - these warnings had been around for at least two years.

Am I missing something here?