Re: GPIOLIB locking is broken and how to fix it

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 5:41 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:47:00PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:56 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 02:12:45PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 7:38 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The reason for that is that I'm stuck on some corner-cases related to
> > > > > the GPIO <-> pinctrl interaction. Specifically the fact that we have
> > > > > GPIOLIB API functions that may be called from atomic context which may
> > > > > end up calling into pinctrl where a mutex will be acquired.
> > > >
> > > > OK I see the problem.
> > > >
> > > > > An example of that is any of the GPIO chips that don't set the
> > > > > can_sleep field in struct gpio_chip but still use
> > > > > gpiochip_generic_config() (e.g. tegra186). We can then encounter the
> > > > > following situation:
> > > > >
> > > > > irq_handler() // in atomic context
> > > > >   gpiod_direction_output() // line is open-drain
> > > > >     gpio_set_config()
> > > > >       gpiochip_generic_config()
> > > > >         pinctrl_gpio_set_config()
> > > > >           mutex_lock()
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently we don't take any locks nor synchronize in any other way
> > > > > (which is wrong as concurrent gpiod_direction_output() and
> > > > > gpiod_direction_input() will get in each other's way).
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that really make sense to protect from here is
> > > > concurrent access to the same register (such as if a single
> > > > register contains multiple bits to set a number of GPIOs at
> > > > output or input).
> > > >
> > > > The real usecases for gpiod_direction_* I know of are limited to:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Once when the GPIO is obtained.
> > > >
> > > > 2. In strict sequence switching back and forth as in
> > > >     drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cbus-gpio.c
> > > >     cbus_transfer()
> > >
> > > Isn't this a very special case already? cbus_transfer() holds the spin
> > > lock across the entire function, so it will only work for a very small
> > > set of GPIO providers anyway, right? Anything that's sleepable just is
> > > not going to work. I suspect that direction configuration is then also
> > > not going to sleep, so this should be fine.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe we could switch to using gpiod_direction_*_raw() here and then
> > mark regular gpiod_direction_input/output() as might_sleep() and be
> > done with it? Treat this one as a special-case and then not accept
> > anyone new calling these from atomic context?
>
> Yeah, I2C CBUS already uses gpiod_set_value() in the same context as
> gpiod_direction_output()/gpiod_direction_input(), so it would've already
> warned about a mismatch anyway. Doing a test-run with the regular
> direction accessors marked as might_sleep() should flush out any other
> abusers.
>
> Thierry

We cannot possibly test all drivers out there but we can start out by
adding: `WARN_ON(in_atomic())` to the direction setters and getters
for the next release and then possibly switch to a full might_sleep()
if nobody complains?

Bart