All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>,
	"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	gregkh <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	sharon.dvir@intel.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: deadlock in synchronize_srcu() in debugfs?
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:56:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1490345799.2766.15.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1490282991.2766.7.camel@sipsolutions.net>

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 16:29 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Isn't it possible for the following to happen?
> 
> CPU1					CPU2
> 
> mutex_lock(&M);
> 					full_proxy_xyz();
> 					srcu_read_lock(&debugfs_srcu);
> 					real_fops->xyz();
> 					mutex_lock(&M);
> debugfs_remove(F);
> synchronize_srcu(&debugfs_srcu);


So I'm pretty sure that this can happen. I'm not convinced that it's
happening here, but still.

I tried to make lockdep flag it, but the only way I could get it to
flag it was to do this:

--- a/include/linux/srcu.h
+++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static inline int srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp) __acquires(sp)
 	preempt_disable();
 	retval = __srcu_read_lock(sp);
 	preempt_enable();
-	rcu_lock_acquire(&(sp)->dep_map);
+	lock_map_acquire(&(sp)->dep_map);
 	return retval;
 }
 
@@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ static inline int srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *sp) __acquires(sp)
 static inline void srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *sp, int idx)
 	__releases(sp)
 {
-	rcu_lock_release(&(sp)->dep_map);
+	lock_map_release(&(sp)->dep_map);
 	__srcu_read_unlock(sp, idx);
 }
 
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
index ef3bcfb15b39..0f9e542ca3f2 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
@@ -395,6 +395,9 @@ static void __synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *sp, int trycount)
 			 lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map),
 			 "Illegal synchronize_srcu() in same-type SRCU (or in RCU) read-side critical section");
 
+	lock_map_acquire(&sp->dep_map);
+	lock_map_release(&sp->dep_map);
+
 	might_sleep();
 	init_completion(&rcu.completion);
 

The lock_map_acquire() in srcu_read_lock() is really not desired
though, since it will make recursion get flagged as bad. If I change
that to lock_map_acquire_read() though, the problem doesn't get flagged
for some reason. I thought it should.


Regardless though, I don't see a way to solve this problem for debugfs.
We have a ton of debugfs files in net/mac80211/debugfs.c that need to
acquire e.g. the RTNL (or other locks), and I'm not sure we can easily
avoid removing the debugfs files under the RTNL, since we get all our
configuration callbacks with the RTNL already held...

Need to think about that, but perhaps there's some other solution?

johannes

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-24  8:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-23 14:54 deadlock in synchronize_srcu() in debugfs? Johannes Berg
2017-03-23 15:29 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24  8:56   ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2017-03-24  9:24     ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24 17:45       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-24 18:51         ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24 19:33           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-24 20:20             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-27 11:18               ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-23 15:36 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-23 15:47   ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-27 11:36   ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-30  7:32     ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-30  7:55       ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-30 10:27         ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-30 11:11           ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-31  9:03             ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-31  9:44               ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-16  9:51               ` [RFC PATCH 0/9] debugfs: per-file removal protection Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 1/9] debugfs: add support for more elaborate ->d_fsdata Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] debugfs: implement per-file removal protection Nicolai Stange
2017-04-18  2:23                   ` [lkp-robot] [debugfs] f3e7155d08: BUG:unable_to_handle_kernel kernel test robot
2017-04-18  2:23                     ` kernel test robot
2017-04-23 18:37                     ` Nicolai Stange
2017-04-23 18:37                       ` Nicolai Stange
2017-04-24  6:36                       ` Ye Xiaolong
2017-04-24  6:36                         ` Ye Xiaolong
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 3/9] debugfs: debugfs_real_fops(): drop __must_hold sparse annotation Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 4/9] debugfs: convert to debugfs_file_get() and -put() Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 5/9] IB/hfi1: " Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 6/9] debugfs: purge obsolete SRCU based removal protection Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 7/9] debugfs: call debugfs_real_fops() only after debugfs_file_get() Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 8/9] debugfs: defer debugfs_fsdata allocation to first usage Nicolai Stange
2017-04-18  9:36                   ` Johannes Berg
2017-05-02 20:05                     ` Nicolai Stange
2017-05-03  5:43                       ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-16  9:51                 ` [RFC PATCH 9/9] debugfs: free debugfs_fsdata instances Nicolai Stange
2017-04-17 16:01                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-18  9:39                     ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-18 13:31                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-18 13:40                         ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-18 15:17                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-18 15:20                             ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-18 17:19                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-23 15:37 ` deadlock in synchronize_srcu() in debugfs? Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-23 15:46   ` Johannes Berg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1490345799.2766.15.camel@sipsolutions.net \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=nicstange@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sharon.dvir@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.