All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Fix ref->mutex deadlock in i915_active_wait()
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 13:39:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200411113957.GB2606747@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200410141738.GB2025@sultan-box.localdomain>

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 07:17:38AM -0700, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:08:38AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:18:09AM -0700, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> > > From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
> > > 
> > > The following deadlock exists in i915_active_wait() due to a double lock
> > > on ref->mutex (call chain listed in order from top to bottom):
> > >  i915_active_wait();
> > >  mutex_lock_interruptible(&ref->mutex); <-- ref->mutex first acquired
> > >  i915_active_request_retire();
> > >  node_retire();
> > >  active_retire();
> > >  mutex_lock_nested(&ref->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); <-- DEADLOCK
> > > 
> > > Fix the deadlock by skipping the second ref->mutex lock when
> > > active_retire() is called through i915_active_request_retire().
> > > 
> > > Note that this bug only affects 5.4 and has since been fixed in 5.5.
> > > Normally, a backport of the fix from 5.5 would be in order, but the
> > > patch set that fixes this deadlock involves massive changes that are
> > > neither feasible nor desirable for backporting [1][2][3]. Therefore,
> > > this small patch was made to address the deadlock specifically for 5.4.
> > > 
> > > [1] 274cbf20fd10 ("drm/i915: Push the i915_active.retire into a worker")
> > > [2] 093b92287363 ("drm/i915: Split i915_active.mutex into an irq-safe spinlock for the rbtree")
> > > [3] 750bde2fd4ff ("drm/i915: Serialise with remote retirement")
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 12c255b5dad1 ("drm/i915: Provide an i915_active.acquire callback")
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.4.x
> > > Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.h |  4 ++--
> > >  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Now queued up, thanks.
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> I'm sorry, I meant the v3 [1]. Apologies for the confusion. The v3 was picked
> into Ubuntu so that's what we're rolling with.

Ok, thanks, hopefully now I picked upthe right one...

greg k-h

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Fix ref->mutex deadlock in i915_active_wait()
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 13:39:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200411113957.GB2606747@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200410141738.GB2025@sultan-box.localdomain>

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 07:17:38AM -0700, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:08:38AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:18:09AM -0700, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> > > From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
> > > 
> > > The following deadlock exists in i915_active_wait() due to a double lock
> > > on ref->mutex (call chain listed in order from top to bottom):
> > >  i915_active_wait();
> > >  mutex_lock_interruptible(&ref->mutex); <-- ref->mutex first acquired
> > >  i915_active_request_retire();
> > >  node_retire();
> > >  active_retire();
> > >  mutex_lock_nested(&ref->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); <-- DEADLOCK
> > > 
> > > Fix the deadlock by skipping the second ref->mutex lock when
> > > active_retire() is called through i915_active_request_retire().
> > > 
> > > Note that this bug only affects 5.4 and has since been fixed in 5.5.
> > > Normally, a backport of the fix from 5.5 would be in order, but the
> > > patch set that fixes this deadlock involves massive changes that are
> > > neither feasible nor desirable for backporting [1][2][3]. Therefore,
> > > this small patch was made to address the deadlock specifically for 5.4.
> > > 
> > > [1] 274cbf20fd10 ("drm/i915: Push the i915_active.retire into a worker")
> > > [2] 093b92287363 ("drm/i915: Split i915_active.mutex into an irq-safe spinlock for the rbtree")
> > > [3] 750bde2fd4ff ("drm/i915: Serialise with remote retirement")
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 12c255b5dad1 ("drm/i915: Provide an i915_active.acquire callback")
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.4.x
> > > Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.h |  4 ++--
> > >  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Now queued up, thanks.
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> I'm sorry, I meant the v3 [1]. Apologies for the confusion. The v3 was picked
> into Ubuntu so that's what we're rolling with.

Ok, thanks, hopefully now I picked upthe right one...

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Fix ref->mutex deadlock in i915_active_wait()
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 13:39:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200411113957.GB2606747@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200410141738.GB2025@sultan-box.localdomain>

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 07:17:38AM -0700, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:08:38AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:18:09AM -0700, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> > > From: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
> > > 
> > > The following deadlock exists in i915_active_wait() due to a double lock
> > > on ref->mutex (call chain listed in order from top to bottom):
> > >  i915_active_wait();
> > >  mutex_lock_interruptible(&ref->mutex); <-- ref->mutex first acquired
> > >  i915_active_request_retire();
> > >  node_retire();
> > >  active_retire();
> > >  mutex_lock_nested(&ref->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); <-- DEADLOCK
> > > 
> > > Fix the deadlock by skipping the second ref->mutex lock when
> > > active_retire() is called through i915_active_request_retire().
> > > 
> > > Note that this bug only affects 5.4 and has since been fixed in 5.5.
> > > Normally, a backport of the fix from 5.5 would be in order, but the
> > > patch set that fixes this deadlock involves massive changes that are
> > > neither feasible nor desirable for backporting [1][2][3]. Therefore,
> > > this small patch was made to address the deadlock specifically for 5.4.
> > > 
> > > [1] 274cbf20fd10 ("drm/i915: Push the i915_active.retire into a worker")
> > > [2] 093b92287363 ("drm/i915: Split i915_active.mutex into an irq-safe spinlock for the rbtree")
> > > [3] 750bde2fd4ff ("drm/i915: Serialise with remote retirement")
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 12c255b5dad1 ("drm/i915: Provide an i915_active.acquire callback")
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.4.x
> > > Signed-off-by: Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.h |  4 ++--
> > >  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Now queued up, thanks.
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> I'm sorry, I meant the v3 [1]. Apologies for the confusion. The v3 was picked
> into Ubuntu so that's what we're rolling with.

Ok, thanks, hopefully now I picked upthe right one...

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-11 11:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-07  6:26 [PATCH 0/1] drm/i915: Fix a deadlock that only affects 5.4 Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-07  6:26 ` [PATCH 1/1] drm/i915: Fix ref->mutex deadlock in i915_active_wait() Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-14  8:13   ` Chris Wilson
2020-04-14  8:13     ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2020-04-14  8:13     ` Chris Wilson
2020-04-14 14:52     ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-14 14:52       ` [Intel-gfx] " Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-14 14:52       ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-07  6:52 ` [PATCH 0/1] drm/i915: Fix a deadlock that only affects 5.4 Greg KH
2020-04-07  6:52   ` [Intel-gfx] " Greg KH
2020-04-07  6:52   ` Greg KH
2020-04-07  7:18   ` [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Fix ref->mutex deadlock in i915_active_wait() Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-07 20:32     ` [PATCH v3] " Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-11 11:39       ` Patch "drm/i915: Fix ref->mutex deadlock in i915_active_wait()" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree gregkh
2020-04-11 11:39         ` [Intel-gfx] " gregkh
2020-04-11 11:59       ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for Patch "drm/i915: Fix ref->mutex deadlock in i915_active_wait()" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree (rev2) Patchwork
2020-04-10  9:08     ` [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Fix ref->mutex deadlock in i915_active_wait() Greg KH
2020-04-10  9:08       ` [Intel-gfx] " Greg KH
2020-04-10  9:08       ` Greg KH
2020-04-10 14:15       ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-10 14:15         ` [Intel-gfx] " Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-10 14:15         ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-10 14:17       ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-10 14:17         ` [Intel-gfx] " Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-10 14:17         ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-11 11:39         ` Greg KH [this message]
2020-04-11 11:39           ` [Intel-gfx] " Greg KH
2020-04-11 11:39           ` Greg KH
2020-04-14  8:15           ` Chris Wilson
2020-04-14  8:15             ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2020-04-14  8:15             ` Chris Wilson
2020-04-14  8:23             ` Greg KH
2020-04-14  8:23               ` [Intel-gfx] " Greg KH
2020-04-14  8:23               ` Greg KH
2020-04-20  9:02               ` Joonas Lahtinen
2020-04-20  9:02                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Joonas Lahtinen
2020-04-20  9:02                 ` Joonas Lahtinen
2020-04-20 15:42                 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-20 15:42                   ` [Intel-gfx] " Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-20 15:42                   ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-21  8:04                   ` Joonas Lahtinen
2020-04-21  8:04                     ` [Intel-gfx] " Joonas Lahtinen
2020-04-21  8:04                     ` Joonas Lahtinen
2020-04-21 16:38                     ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-21 16:38                       ` [Intel-gfx] " Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-21 16:38                       ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-21 20:55                       ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-04-21 20:55                         ` [Intel-gfx] " Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-04-21 20:55                         ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2020-04-14 14:35             ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-14 14:35               ` [Intel-gfx] " Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-14 14:35               ` Sultan Alsawaf
2020-04-10 11:46     ` Patch "drm/i915: Fix ref->mutex deadlock in i915_active_wait()" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree gregkh
2020-04-10 11:46       ` [Intel-gfx] " gregkh
2020-04-10 11:56     ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for " Patchwork

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=20200411113957.GB2606747@kroah.com \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=airlied@linux.ie \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sultan@kerneltoast.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.