> Subject: Re: RE: Re: [PATCH 09/11] drivers: infiniband: hw: Fix deadlock in
> irdma_cleanup_cm_core()
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:36:12 +0000 Saleem, Shiraz wrote:
>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 09/11] drivers: infiniband: hw: Fix deadlock
> > > in
> > > irdma_cleanup_cm_core()
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 08:54:13PM +0800, duoming@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:24:56 +0300 Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > There is a deadlock in irdma_cleanup_cm_core(), which is shown
> > > > > > below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Thread 1) | (Thread 2)
> > > > > > | irdma_schedule_cm_timer()
> > > > > > irdma_cleanup_cm_core() | add_timer()
> > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave() //(1) | (wait a time)
> > > > > > ... | irdma_cm_timer_tick()
> > > > > > del_timer_sync() | spin_lock_irqsave() //(2)
> > > > > > (wait timer to stop) | ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We hold cm_core->ht_lock in position (1) of thread 1 and use
> > > > > > del_timer_sync() to wait timer to stop, but timer handler also
> > > > > > need cm_core->ht_lock in position (2) of thread 2.
> > > > > > As a result, irdma_cleanup_cm_core() will block forever.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch extracts del_timer_sync() from the protection of
> > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(), which could let timer handler to obtain
> > > > > > the needed lock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/infiniband/hw/irdma/cm.c | 5 ++++-
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/irdma/cm.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/infiniband/hw/irdma/cm.c
> > > > > > index dedb3b7edd8..019dd8bfe08 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/irdma/cm.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/irdma/cm.c
> > > > > > @@ -3252,8 +3252,11 @@ void irdma_cleanup_cm_core(struct
> > > irdma_cm_core *cm_core)
> > > > > > return;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&cm_core->ht_lock, flags);
> > > > > > - if (timer_pending(&cm_core->tcp_timer))
> > > > > > + if (timer_pending(&cm_core->tcp_timer)) {
> > > > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cm_core->ht_lock, flags);
> > > > > > del_timer_sync(&cm_core->tcp_timer);
> > > > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&cm_core->ht_lock, flags);
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cm_core->ht_lock, flags);
> > > > >
> > > > > This lock doesn't seem to be protecting anything. Also do we
> > > > > need to check timer_pending()? I think the del_timer_sync()
> > > > > function will just return directly if there isn't a pending lock?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for your advice, I will remove the timer_pending()
> > > > and the redundant lock.
> > >
> > > I didn't give any advice. :P I only ask questions when I don't know the answers.
> > > Someone probably needs to look at &cm_core->ht_lock and figure out
> > > what it's protecting.
> > >
> > Agreed on this fix.
> >
> > We should not lock around del_timer_sync or need to check on timer_pending.
> >
> > However, we do need serialize addition of a timer which can be called from
> multiple paths, i.e. the timer handler and irdma_schedule_cm_timer.
>
> I think we should replace the check "if (!timer_pending(&cm_core->tcp_timer))" to
> "if (timer_pending(&cm_core->tcp_timer))" in irdma_cm_timer_tick(), and replace "if
> (!was_timer_set)" to "if (was_timer_set)" in irdma_schedule_cm_timer() in order to
> guarantee the timer could be executed. I will send the modified patch as soon as
> possible.
>
No we don’t arm the timer if there's is one pending. Its also a bug to do so.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.18-rc1/source/kernel/time/timer.c#L1143
