On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 14:51:09 +0800 Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
On 2022/1/29 17:57, Greg KH wrote:Hey Jia-Ju
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 05:34:05PM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:My static analysis tool checks the tty driver in Linux 5.16, and also
Hello,5.10 was released over a year ago and over 100 thousand changes ago.
My static analysis tool reports a possible deadlock in the tty driver in
Linux 5.10:
Please redo your check on 5.16 at the oldest.
finds this possible deadlock:
uart_remove_one_port()
mutex_lock(&port->mutex); --> Line 3032 (Lock A)
wait_event(state->remove_wait, ...); --> Line 3034 (Wait X)
mutex_unlock(&port->mutex); --> Line 3036 (Unlock A)
uart_hangup()
mutex_lock(&port->mutex); --> Line 1669 (Lock A)
uart_flush_buffer()
uart_port_unlock()
uart_port_deref()
wake_up(&uport->state->remove_wait); --> Line 68 (Wake X)
mutex_unlock(&port->mutex); --> Line 1686 (Unlock A)
When uart_remove_one_port() is executed, "Wait X" is performed by
holding "Lock A". If uart_hangup() is executed at this time, "Wake X"
cannot be performed to wake up "Wait X" in uart_remove_one_port(),
because "Lock A" has been already hold by uart_remove_one_port(),
causing a possible deadlock.
I am not quite sure whether this possible problem is real and how to fix
it if it is real.
Maybe we can call wait_event() before mutex_lock() in
uart_remove_one_port().
Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks :)
Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai
Thank you for reporting it.
In uart_flush_buffer(), uart_port_unlock() pairs with uart_port_lock()
which bumps refcount up. OTOH no wakep is needed without refcount
incremented, so the wakeup above in the hangup path is not waited for
in the remove path.