Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] console: implement lockdep support forconsole_lock

[Daniel Vetter]

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 01:06:29PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 07:52:11PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Dave Airlie recently discovered a locking bug in the fbcon layer,
> > where a timer_del_sync (for the blinking cursor) deadlocks with the
> > timer itself, since both (want to) hold the console_lock:
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/21/36
> > 
> > Unfortunately the console_lock isn't a plain mutex and hence has no
> > lockdep support. Which resulted in a few days wasted of tracking down
> > this bug (complicated by the fact that printk doesn't show anything
> > when the console is locked) instead of noticing the bug much earlier
> > with the lockdep splat.
> > 
> > Hence I've figured I need to fix that for the next deadlock involving
> > console_lock - and with kms/drm growing ever more complex locking
> > that'll eventually happen.
> > 
> > Now the console_lock has rather funky semantics, so after a quick irc
> > discussion with Thomas Gleixner and Dave Airlie I've quickly ditched
> > the original idead of switching to a real mutex (since it won't work)
> > and instead opted to annotate the console_lock with lockdep
> > information manually.
> > 
> > There are a few special cases:
> > - The console_lock state is protected by the console_sem, and usually
> >   grabbed/dropped at _lock/_unlock time. But the suspend/resume code
> >   drops the semaphore without dropping the console_lock (see
> >   suspend_console/resume_console). But since the same thread that did
> >   the suspend will do the resume, we don't need to fix up anything.
> > 
> > - In the printk code there's a special trylock, only used to kick off
> >   the logbuffer printk'ing in console_unlock. But all that happens
> >   while lockdep is disable (since printk does a few other evil
> >   tricks). So no issue there, either.
> > 
> > - The console_lock can also be acquired form irq context (but only
> >   with a trylock). lockdep already handles that.
> > 
> > This all leaves us with annotating the normal console_lock, _unlock
> > and _trylock functions.
> > 
> > And yes, it works - simply unloading a drm kms driver resulted in
> > lockdep complaining about the deadlock in fbcon_deinit:
> > 
> > ======================================================
> > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > 3.6.0-rc2+ #552 Not tainted
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > kms-reload/3577 is trying to acquire lock:
> >  ((&info->queue)){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81058c70>] wait_on_work+0x0/0xa7
> > 
> > but task is already holding lock:
> >  (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81264686>] bind_con_driver+0x38/0x263
> > 
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > 
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > 
> > -> #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
> >        [<ffffffff81087440>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
> >        [<ffffffff81040190>] console_lock+0x59/0x5b
> >        [<ffffffff81209cb6>] fb_flashcursor+0x2e/0x12c
> >        [<ffffffff81057c3e>] process_one_work+0x1d9/0x3b4
> >        [<ffffffff810584a2>] worker_thread+0x1a7/0x24b
> >        [<ffffffff8105ca29>] kthread+0x7f/0x87
> >        [<ffffffff813b1204>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > 
> > -> #0 ((&info->queue)){+.+...}:
> >        [<ffffffff81086cb3>] __lock_acquire+0x999/0xcf6
> >        [<ffffffff81087440>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
> >        [<ffffffff81058cab>] wait_on_work+0x3b/0xa7
> >        [<ffffffff81058dd6>] __cancel_work_timer+0xbf/0x102
> >        [<ffffffff81058e33>] cancel_work_sync+0xb/0xd
> >        [<ffffffff8120a3b3>] fbcon_deinit+0x11c/0x1dc
> >        [<ffffffff81264793>] bind_con_driver+0x145/0x263
> >        [<ffffffff81264a45>] unbind_con_driver+0x14f/0x195
> >        [<ffffffff8126540c>] store_bind+0x1ad/0x1c1
> >        [<ffffffff8127cbb7>] dev_attr_store+0x13/0x1f
> >        [<ffffffff8116d884>] sysfs_write_file+0xe9/0x121
> >        [<ffffffff811145b2>] vfs_write+0x9b/0xfd
> >        [<ffffffff811147b7>] sys_write+0x3e/0x6b
> >        [<ffffffff813b0039>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> > 
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > 
> >  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > 
> >        CPU0                    CPU1
> >        ----                    ----
> >   lock(console_lock);
> >                                lock((&info->queue));
> >                                lock(console_lock);
> >   lock((&info->queue));
> > 
> >  *** DEADLOCK ***
> > 
> > v2: Mark the lockdep_map static, noticed by Jani Nikula.
> > 
> > Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/printk.c |    9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> So I'm guessing I should take this through the tty tree, right?  Any
> objections to that for 3.7?

I didn't know who would be the relevant maintainer, so just spammed a few
people. Would be awesome if you could merge these patches for 3.7, and at
least Alan Cox seems to like them:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-fbdev&m=134564125601147&w=1

Thanks, Daniel
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/