From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349DAC4360C for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1093121835 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 17:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="dP7TS4M2" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726209AbfJJRty (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:49:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com ([209.85.215.193]:43345 "EHLO mail-pg1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726157AbfJJRty (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:49:54 -0400 Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id i32so4121991pgl.10 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:49:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LApmN2EK3uLlyTq9P9EB8Aq1G4SEX1zZlU6ES0o1nJo=; b=dP7TS4M2TEHNoGLCTTGDuieQZzssBfVoCe8Pzat71EQyXDEdflnETlFy4xJyMemCha bWrCOyY4txjJ0PkdSBfrTsNcAZPn8f+F6B0GU+fAkD83h5/xYDa53PJLELTtOl3VEbsS x1xWm1ZHEh1ZcGxKXSzbUdnpMiFjD7BMC25oWft6SE53AmhPt5KpV7w1Z5aJENXjHM40 CiTJ3ugCwebE/N0zFY4uBvjGrT5gnckOB8VudAaABUbyWODGcS8Une6G9plib2Xv1dTR 34UCmIWe9vRiFvqYC9j2TblBI9kM3G6Ht1t8JB3m3D7GtZ9luqf4UNhHiF0Iu3QEam2u zeBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LApmN2EK3uLlyTq9P9EB8Aq1G4SEX1zZlU6ES0o1nJo=; b=Q+o4k5r4LMAKYGPsXgdHynpKlyTzs8tgqzQEiQdo7VKOtBlJjD5kn/+6ZTTPq7G49j +/dNZwZR22R7RBlhCcYbQ+1exDqo6yk11+W5isPjMCtTTABDtdwjIOAxtu+vg0tWYHsm r3s3GIUtwRum5trbkaS7Y0ZoRsxH0pawKz0yrFoJNnQKTkanfFDKbAlcqt+77YYV0icg rYhQQ1oEBVD6epELDKlPFz4JZeUjUmtJnh1p4IvK+vw5KLXrkzXXpCx0Q0RocQgYJh3P /vwfwhHaQsMdI6qJ9kfcQ6DDtJf4Asq+14aB7/69amO6bY/9/x0VoO7SE0p+AWFXe80H xw6A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWuChWY5eCkwnLbrXIhuJK/cWUkP9gWyn/AH1aBDYyXL62CdE6L VhizxfoCakJNypj2mOpdHCBxzeZJ X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxRkuEoFuMGtm9QPX22D4Met6MZTkSeVGGwvsxT1sqcGc45Q5FGbGebOvfJh94BtegCpfLunw== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:956a:: with SMTP id x10mr11912711pfq.114.1570729792677; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.230.29.90] ([192.19.223.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n3sm8553650pff.102.2019.10.10.10.49.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: scsi: lpfc: Fix hardlockup in lpfc_abort_handler To: Zhangguanghui , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" Cc: "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , James Smart References: From: James Smart Message-ID: <834b8a8d-8c08-0903-852d-7387e2331533@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:49:50 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 10/10/2019 1:59 AM, Zhangguanghui wrote: > Hi everyone > > Please refer to the latest patch. > > There is a race deadlock in the function lpfc_abort_handler > > potential deadlocks arising from lock ordering problems. > > It’s the correct order > > spin_unlock(&lpfc_cmd->buf_lock) > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&phba->hbalock, flags); > > How to solve it ? I think that the patch is reasonable, > > can you help me review and commit this patch, Best regards > > diff --git a/src/lpfc-12.2.0.0/lpfc_scsi.c b/src/lpfc-12.2.0.0/lpfc_scsi.c > > index 3f1375a..19c8505 100644 > > --- a/src/lpfc-12.2.0.0/lpfc_scsi.c > > +++ b/src/lpfc-12.2.0.0/lpfc_scsi.c > We confirmed the issue you stated. We are looking at what you proposed and will be adding a patch that will be posted in our next patch set after we've put it through some regression testing. -- james