4.19-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@xxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 15319a4e8ee4b098118591c6ccbd17237f841613 ]
As &card->tx_queue_lock is acquired under softirq context along the
following call chain from solos_bh(), other acquisition of the same
lock inside process context should disable at least bh to avoid double
lock.
<deadlock #2>
pclose()
--> spin_lock(&card->tx_queue_lock)
<interrupt>
--> solos_bh()
--> fpga_tx()
--> spin_lock(&card->tx_queue_lock)
This flaw was found by an experimental static analysis tool I am
developing for irq-related deadlock.
To prevent the potential deadlock, the patch uses spin_lock_bh()
on &card->tx_queue_lock under process context code consistently to
prevent the possible deadlock scenario.
Fixes: 213e85d38912 ("solos-pci: clean up pclose() function")
Signed-off-by: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/atm/solos-pci.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/atm/solos-pci.c b/drivers/atm/solos-pci.c
index 95d8f1b8cf75f..60fd48f23c6df 100644
--- a/drivers/atm/solos-pci.c
+++ b/drivers/atm/solos-pci.c
@@ -968,14 +968,14 @@ static void pclose(struct atm_vcc *vcc)
struct pkt_hdr *header;
/* Remove any yet-to-be-transmitted packets from the pending queue */
- spin_lock(&card->tx_queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&card->tx_queue_lock);
skb_queue_walk_safe(&card->tx_queue[port], skb, tmpskb) {
if (SKB_CB(skb)->vcc == vcc) {
skb_unlink(skb, &card->tx_queue[port]);
solos_pop(vcc, skb);
}
}
- spin_unlock(&card->tx_queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&card->tx_queue_lock);
skb = alloc_skb(sizeof(*header), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!skb) {
--
2.43.0
