On 2020/6/26 7:24, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:23:09PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:15:27AM +0800, Xiang Zheng wrote:
>>> 7ea7e98fd8d0 ("PCI: Block on access to temporarily unavailable pci
>>> device") suggests that the "pci_lock" is sufficient, and all the
>>> callers of pci_wait_cfg() are wrapped with the "pci_lock".
>>>
>>> However, since the commit cdcb33f98244 ("PCI: Avoid possible deadlock on
>>> pci_lock and p->pi_lock") merged, the accesses to the pci_cfg_wait queue
>>> are not safe anymore. This would cause kernel panic in a very low chance
>>> (See more detailed information from the below link). A "pci_lock" is
>>> insufficient and we need to hold an additional queue lock while read/write
>>> the wait queue.
>>>
>>> So let's use the add_wait_queue()/remove_wait_queue() instead of
>>> __add_wait_queue()/__remove_wait_queue(). Also move the wait queue
>>> functionality around the "schedule()" function to avoid reintroducing
>>> the deadlock addressed by "cdcb33f98244".
>>
>> I see that add_wait_queue() acquires the wq_head->lock, while
>> __add_wait_queue() does not.
>>
>> But I don't understand why the existing pci_lock is insufficient.
>> pci_cfg_wait is only used in pci_wait_cfg() and
>> pci_cfg_access_unlock().
>>
>> In pci_wait_cfg(), both __add_wait_queue() and __remove_wait_queue()
>> are called while holding pci_lock, so that doesn't seem like the
>> problem.
>>
>> In pci_cfg_access_unlock(), we have:
>>
>> pci_cfg_access_unlock
>> wake_up_all(&pci_cfg_wait)
>> __wake_up(&pci_cfg_wait, ...)
>> __wake_up_common_lock(&pci_cfg_wait, ...)
>> spin_lock(&pci_cfg_wait->lock)
>> __wake_up_common(&pci_cfg_wait, ...)
>> list_for_each_entry_safe_from(...)
>> list_add_tail(...) <-- problem?
>> spin_unlock(&pci_cfg_wait->lock)
>>
>> Is the problem that the wake_up_all() modifies the pci_cfg_wait list
>> without holding pci_lock?
>>
>> If so, I don't quite see how the patch below fixes it. Oh, wait,
>> maybe I do ... by using add_wait_queue(), we protect the list using
>> the *same* lock used by __wake_up_common_lock. Is that it?
>
> Any reaction to the following? Certainly not as optimized, but also a
> little less magic and more in the mainstream of wait_event/wake_up
> usage.
>
> I don't claim any real wait queue knowledge and haven't tested it.
> There are only a handful of __add_wait_queue() users compared with
> over 1600 users of wait_event() and variants, and I don't like being
> such a special case.
>
I think the following patch is OK, even though I prefer mine. :)
I can test your patch on my testcase(with hacked 300ms delay before "curr->func"
in __wake_up_common()). And if James has more efficient testcase or measure for
this problem, then go with James.
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/access.c b/drivers/pci/access.c
> index 79c4a2ef269a..7c2222bddbff 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/access.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/access.c
> @@ -205,16 +205,11 @@ static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(pci_cfg_wait);
>
> static noinline void pci_wait_cfg(struct pci_dev *dev)
> {
> - DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
> -
> - __add_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait);
> do {
> - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pci_lock);
> - schedule();
> + wait_event(pci_cfg_wait, !dev->block_cfg_access);
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&pci_lock);
> } while (dev->block_cfg_access);
> - __remove_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait);
> }
>
> /* Returns 0 on success, negative values indicate error. */
>
> .
>
--
Thanks,
Xiang
