On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 7:06 PM Heng Qi <hengqi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 在 2023/12/5 下午4:35, Jason Wang 写道: > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 4:02 PM Heng Qi <hengqi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Currently access to ctrl cmd is globally protected via rtnl_lock and works > >> fine. But if dim work's access to ctrl cmd also holds rtnl_lock, deadlock > >> may occur due to cancel_work_sync for dim work. > > Can you explain why? > > For example, during the bus unbind operation, the following call stack > occurs: > virtnet_remove -> unregister_netdev -> rtnl_lock[1] -> virtnet_close -> > cancel_work_sync -> virtnet_rx_dim_work -> rtnl_lock[2] (deadlock occurs). Can we use rtnl_trylock() and reschedule the work? > > >> Therefore, treating > >> ctrl cmd as a separate protection object of the lock is the solution and > >> the basis for the next patch. > > Let's don't do that. Reasons are: > > > > 1) virtnet_send_command() may wait for cvq commands for an indefinite time > > Yes, I took that into consideration. But ndo_set_rx_mode's need for an > atomic > environment rules out the mutex lock. It is a "bug" that we need to fix. > > > 2) hold locks may complicate the future hardening works around cvq > > Agree, but I don't seem to have thought of a better way besides passing > the lock. > Do you have any other better ideas or suggestions? So far no, you can refer to the past discussions, it might require the collaboration from the uAPI and stack. Thanks > > Thanks! > > > > > Thanks >
