Re: [PATCH] gpio: gpiolib-cdev: Fix potential &lr->wait.lock deadlock issue

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:50:47PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:23 AM Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > spin_lock_bh() should be sufficient, given that edge_irq_thread() is run
> > in a softirq?  That is faster and would allow the hard irq handlers to
> > still run, and timestamp the event, but inhibit the edge_irq_thread()
> > from being called on that CPU until the lock is released.
> > (hmmm, gpio_desc_to_lineinfo() also uses spin_lock_irqsave() but it is
> > never called from hard irq context, so there is a good chance I'm missing
> > something here??)
> > More on spin_lock choice below.
> 
> Again: this is incorrect - edge_irq_thread() doesn't execute in
> softirq context which can be verified by calling in_softirq() from it.
> 

Ok, that matches what I had initially thought.  Wading through the kernel
doc got me thinking the secondary handler was run as a softirq.
But it is a threaded irq used here, so the thread handler runs in a
kernel thread, as does the debounce_work_func() and hte thread handler
process_hw_ts_thread().
That's a relief.

While we are on the subject of spin_locks, why does
gpio_desc_to_lineinfo() use spin_lock_irqsave()?
I assume the _irq is necessary as the desc could be updated at interrupt
level, but AFAICT gpio_desc_to_lineinfo() is only ever called from process
context, so why not just spin_lock_irq()?

Cheers,
Kent.