Re: [patch, validator] fix proc_subdir_lock related deadlock

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > proc_subdir_lock can also be used from softirq (tasklet) context, which 
> > may lead to deadlocks.
> > 
> > This bug was found via the lock validator:
> > 
> 
> Thanks Ingo,
> 
> I stressed in sending the patch that there was a big assumption that 
> the calls would not be done in (soft)irq context.  I just didn't want 
> to add overhead if it wasn't needed.  But I guess that this is needed 
> until we can remove all the instances that use it in softirq context. 
> But that's for a later patch.

the validator just found another problem with this lock, pointing out 
that files_lock nests inside of proc_subdir_lock, and that files_lock is 
a softirq-unsafe lock, creating another (unlikely but possible) deadlock 
scenario:

 =====================================
 [ BUG: lock inversion bug detected! ]
 -------------------------------------
 grep/2290 just changed the state of lock {proc_subdir_lock} at:
  [<c0196e53>] remove_proc_entry+0x33/0x1f0
 but this lock took lock {files_lock} in the past,
 acquired at: [<c0196ece>] remove_proc_entry+0xae/0x1f0
 and interrupts could create an inverse lock dependency between them,
 which could lead to deadlocks!
 other info that might help in debugging this:
 ------------------------------
 | showing all locks held by: |  (grep/2290 [c321c790, 125]):
 ------------------------------

  [<c010432d>] show_trace+0xd/0x10
  [<c0104347>] dump_stack+0x17/0x20
  [<c0137b11>] check_no_lock_2_mask+0x131/0x180
  [<c0137ffb>] mark_lock+0xfb/0x2a0
  [<c01387b3>] debug_lock_chain+0x613/0x10d0
  [<c01392ad>] debug_lock_chain_spin+0x3d/0x60
  [<c02656ed>] _raw_spin_lock+0x2d/0x90
  [<c04d88d2>] _spin_lock_bh+0x12/0x20
  [<c0196e53>] remove_proc_entry+0x33/0x1f0
  [<c01427c9>] unregister_handler_proc+0x19/0x20
  [<c0141f8b>] free_irq+0x7b/0xe0
  [<c02f2302>] floppy_release_irq_and_dma+0x1b2/0x210
  [<c02f07f7>] set_dor+0xc7/0x1b0
  [<c02f3871>] motor_off_callback+0x21/0x30
  [<c01273a5>] run_timer_softirq+0xf5/0x1f0
  [<c0122cf7>] __do_softirq+0x97/0x130
  [<c0105519>] do_softirq+0x69/0x100
  =======================
  [<c01229a9>] irq_exit+0x39/0x50
  [<c010f4cc>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x4c/0x50
  [<c010393b>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x27/0x2c

to solve this we must either change files_lock to be softirq-safe too 
(bleh!), or we must forbid remove_proc_entry() use from softirq 
contexts. Neither is a happy solution - remove_proc_entry() is used 
within free_irq(), and who knows how many drivers do free_irq() in 
softirq/tasklet context ...

Andrew, this needs to be resolved before v2.6.16, correct? Steve's patch 
solves a real bug in the upstream kernel.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/