Re: [PATCH 1/3] coresight: ultrasoc-smb: fix sleep while close preempt in enable_smb

From: hejunhao
Date: Sat Oct 21 2023 - 03:25:18 EST


Hi Jonathan,


On 2023/10/19 21:30, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:47:04 +0800
Junhao He <hejunhao3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

When we to enable the SMB by perf, the perf sched will call perf_ctx_lock()
to close system preempt in event_function_call(). But SMB::enable_smb() use
mutex to lock the critical section, which may sleep.

BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:580
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, non_block: 0, pid: 153023, name: perf
preempt_count: 2, expected: 0
RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
INFO: lockdep is turned off.
irq event stamp: 0
hardirqs last enabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
hardirqs last disabled at (0): [<ffffa2983f5c5f40>] copy_process+0xae8/0x2b48
softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffa2983f5c5f40>] copy_process+0xae8/0x2b48
softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
CPU: 2 PID: 153023 Comm: perf Kdump: loaded Tainted: G W O 6.5.0-rc4+ #1

Call trace:
...
__mutex_lock+0xbc/0xa70
mutex_lock_nested+0x34/0x48
smb_update_buffer+0x58/0x360 [ultrasoc_smb]
etm_event_stop+0x204/0x2d8 [coresight]
etm_event_del+0x1c/0x30 [coresight]
event_sched_out+0x17c/0x3b8
group_sched_out.part.0+0x5c/0x208
__perf_event_disable+0x15c/0x210
event_function+0xe0/0x230
remote_function+0xb4/0xe8
generic_exec_single+0x160/0x268
smp_call_function_single+0x20c/0x2a0
event_function_call+0x20c/0x220
_perf_event_disable+0x5c/0x90
perf_event_for_each_child+0x58/0xc0
_perf_ioctl+0x34c/0x1250
perf_ioctl+0x64/0x98
...

Use spinlock replace mutex to control driver data access to one at a
time. But the function copy_to_user() may sleep so spinlock do not to
lock it.
I'd like to see a comment on why we no longer need to lock over the copy_to_user
rather than simply that we can't.

Yes, I will do that.

Fixes: 06f5c2926aaa ("drivers/coresight: Add UltraSoc System Memory Buffer driver")
Signed-off-by: Junhao He <hejunhao3@xxxxxxxxxx>
A follow up patch could change a lot of this to use the new cleanup.h (don't want that
in the fix though as will make back porting trickier.).
That should let you do
guard(spin_lock)(&drvdata->spinlock);
and then use direct returns instead of goto complexity.



Jonathan

Thanks for sharing.
I will append up a new patch to use guards to reduce gotos.


@@ -132,10 +132,8 @@ static ssize_t smb_read(struct file *file, char __user *data, size_t len,
if (!len)
return 0;
- mutex_lock(&drvdata->mutex);
-
if (!sdb->data_size)
- goto out;
+ return 0;
to_copy = min(sdb->data_size, len);
@@ -145,20 +143,18 @@ static ssize_t smb_read(struct file *file, char __user *data, size_t len,
if (copy_to_user(data, sdb->buf_base + sdb->buf_rdptr, to_copy)) {
dev_dbg(dev, "Failed to copy data to user\n");
- to_copy = -EFAULT;
- goto out;
+ return -EFAULT;
}
+ spin_lock(&drvdata->spinlock);
*ppos += to_copy;
-
Unrelated white space change that shouldn't be here.

Ok, i will drop this white space



Thanks for the comments!

Best regards,
Junhao.


smb_update_read_ptr(drvdata, to_copy);
- dev_dbg(dev, "%zu bytes copied\n", to_copy);
-out:
if (!sdb->data_size)
smb_reset_buffer(drvdata);
- mutex_unlock(&drvdata->mutex);
+ spin_unlock(&drvdata->spinlock);
+ dev_dbg(dev, "%zu bytes copied\n", to_copy);
return to_copy;
}

.