Re: [PATCH v2] misc: bcm_vk: Fix potential deadlock on &vk->ctx_lock

[Chengfeng Ye]

> The timer function does not seem to be performance critical at all,
> it might be nicer to just move it into process context using
> a delayed workqueue instead of a timer.

Thanks for the suggestion, new patch is sent with a delayed workqueue.

Best Regards,
Chengfeng

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> 于2023年6月28日周三 19:56写道：
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023, at 13:29, Chengfeng Ye wrote:
> > As &vk->ctx_lock is acquired by timer bcm_vk_hb_poll() under softirq
> > context, other process context code should disable irq or bottom-half
> > before acquire the same lock, otherwise deadlock could happen if the
> > timer preempt the execution while the lock is held in process context
> > on the same CPU.
> >
> > Possible deadlock scenario
> > bcm_vk_open()
> >     -> bcm_vk_get_ctx()
> >     -> spin_lock(&vk->ctx_lock)
> >       <timer iterrupt>
> >       -> bcm_vk_hb_poll()
> >       -> bcm_vk_blk_drv_access()
> >       -> spin_lock_irqsave(&vk->ctx_lock, flags) (deadlock here)
> >
> > This flaw was found using an experimental static analysis tool we are
> > developing for irq-related deadlock, which reported the following
> > warning when analyzing the linux kernel 6.4-rc7 release.
>
> The timer function does not seem to be performance critical at all,
> it might be nicer to just move it into process context using
> a delayed workqueue instead of a timer.
>
>      Arnd