linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michał Mirosław" <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: regulator: deadlock vs memory reclaim
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 02:07:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200811000722.GA30574@qmqm.qmqm.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <81e490af-d1da-873a-51b4-130ca82fd1f6@gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:56:13PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 10.08.2020 23:21, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> > 10.08.2020 23:18, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:15:28PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >>> 10.08.2020 23:09, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> >>>> At first I also thought so, but there's more. Below is a lockdep
> >>>> complaint with your patch applied. I did a similar patch and then two more
> >>>> (following) and that is still not enough (sysfs/debugfs do allocations,
> >>>> too).
> >>> Then it should be good to move the locking for init_coupling() like I
> >>> suggested and use GFP_NOWAIT for the two other cases. It all could be a
> >>> single small patch. Could you please check whether GFP_NOWAIT helps?
> >>
> >> This would be equivalent to my patches. Problem with sysfs and debugfs
> >> remains as they don't have the option of GFP_NOWAIT. This needs to be
> >> moved outside of the locks.
> > 
> > Ah okay, you meant the debugfs core. I see now, thanks.
> > 
> 
> This indeed needs a capital solution.
> 
> It's not obvious how to fix it.. we can probably remove taking the
> list_mutex from lock_dependent(), but this still won't help the case of
> memory reclaiming because reclaim may cause touching the already locked
> regulator. IIUC, the case of memory reclaiming under regulator lock was
> always dangerous and happened to work by chance before, correct?

I just noticed that locking in regulator_resolve_coupling() is bogus.
This all holds up because regulator_list_mutex is held during the call.
Feel free to test a patch below.

I'm working my way to push allocations outside of the locks, but the
coupling-related locking will need to be fixed regardless.

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław

---->8<----

[PATCH] regulator: remove superfluous lock in regulator_resolve_coupling()

The code modifies rdev, but locks c_rdev instead. The bug remains:
stored c_rdev could be freed just after unlock anyway. This doesn't blow
up because regulator_list_mutex taken outside holds it together.

Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index 94f9225869da..e519bc9a860d 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -4859,13 +4859,9 @@ static void regulator_resolve_coupling(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 			return;
 		}
 
-		regulator_lock(c_rdev);
-
 		c_desc->coupled_rdevs[i] = c_rdev;
 		c_desc->n_resolved++;
 
-		regulator_unlock(c_rdev);
-
 		regulator_resolve_coupling(c_rdev);
 	}
 }
-- 
2.20.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-08-11  0:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <cover.1597089543.git.mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
2020-08-10 20:09 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] regulator: allocate memory outside of regulator_list mutex Michał Mirosław
2020-08-10 20:09 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] regulator: push enable_gpio allocation out from under regulator_list_mutex Michał Mirosław
2020-08-10 20:09 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] regulator: push supply_name allocation outside of lock Michał Mirosław
2020-08-10 20:15 ` regulator: deadlock vs memory reclaim Dmitry Osipenko
2020-08-10 20:18   ` Michał Mirosław
2020-08-10 20:21     ` Dmitry Osipenko
2020-08-10 20:56       ` Dmitry Osipenko
2020-08-10 21:23         ` Dmitry Osipenko
2020-08-11  0:07         ` Michał Mirosław [this message]
2020-08-11 15:44           ` Dmitry Osipenko
2020-08-09 22:25 Michał Mirosław
2020-08-10  0:09 ` Dmitry Osipenko
2020-08-10 15:39 ` Mark Brown
2020-08-10 16:09   ` Michał Mirosław
2020-08-10 17:31     ` Mark Brown
2020-08-10 19:25       ` Michał Mirosław
2020-08-10 19:41         ` Dmitry Osipenko
2020-08-10 19:51           ` Mark Brown

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=20200811000722.GA30574@qmqm.qmqm.pl \
    --to=mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=digetx@gmail.com \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).