diff mbox series

[vfio,3/3] pds/vfio: Fix possible sleep while in atomic context

Message ID 20230914191540.54946-4-brett.creeley@amd.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series pds/vfio: Fixes for locking bugs | expand

Commit Message

Brett Creeley Sept. 14, 2023, 7:15 p.m. UTC 
The driver could possibly sleep while in atomic context resulting
in the following call trace while CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y is
set:

[  227.229806] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:283
[  227.229818] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 2817, name: bash
[  227.229824] preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
[  227.229827] RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
[  227.229832] CPU: 5 PID: 2817 Comm: bash Tainted: G S         OE      6.6.0-rc1-next-20230911 #1
[  227.229839] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021
[  227.229843] Call Trace:
[  227.229848]  <TASK>
[  227.229853]  dump_stack_lvl+0x36/0x50
[  227.229865]  __might_resched+0x123/0x170
[  227.229877]  mutex_lock+0x1e/0x50
[  227.229891]  pds_vfio_put_lm_file+0x1e/0xa0 [pds_vfio_pci]
[  227.229909]  pds_vfio_put_save_file+0x19/0x30 [pds_vfio_pci]
[  227.229923]  pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock+0x2e/0x80 [pds_vfio_pci]
[  227.229937]  pci_reset_function+0x4b/0x70
[  227.229948]  reset_store+0x5b/0xa0
[  227.229959]  kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x137/0x1d0
[  227.229972]  vfs_write+0x2de/0x410
[  227.229986]  ksys_write+0x5d/0xd0
[  227.229996]  do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
[  227.230004]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
[  227.230017] RIP: 0033:0x7fb202b1fa28
[  227.230023] Code: 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 f3 0f 1e fa 48 8d 05 15 4d 2a 00 8b 00 85 c0 75 17 b8 01 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 58 c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 41 54 49 89 d4 55
[  227.230028] RSP: 002b:00007fff6915fbd8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
[  227.230036] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fb202b1fa28
[  227.230040] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055f3834d5aa0 RDI: 0000000000000001
[  227.230044] RBP: 000055f3834d5aa0 R08: 000000000000000a R09: 00007fb202b7fae0
[  227.230047] R10: 000000000000000a R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fb202dc06e0
[  227.230050] R13: 0000000000000002 R14: 00007fb202dbb860 R15: 0000000000000002
[  227.230056]  </TASK>

This can happen if pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or
pds_vfio_put_save_file() grab the mutex_lock(&lm_file->lock)
while the spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) is held, which can
happen during while calling pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock().

Fix this by releasing the spin_unlock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) before
calling pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and pds_vfio_put_save_file() and
re-acquiring spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) after the previously
mentioned functions are called to protect setting the subsequent
state/deferred reset settings.

The only possible concerns are other threads that may call
pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or pds_vfio_put_save_file(). However,
those paths are already protected by the state mutex_lock().

Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/1f9bc27b-3de9-4891-9687-ba2820c1b390@moroto.mountain/
Signed-off-by: Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@amd.com>
---
 drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

Alex Williamson Sept. 14, 2023, 10:38 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:15:40 -0700
Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@amd.com> wrote:

> The driver could possibly sleep while in atomic context resulting
> in the following call trace while CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y is
> set:
> 
> [  227.229806] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:283
> [  227.229818] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 2817, name: bash
> [  227.229824] preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
> [  227.229827] RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
> [  227.229832] CPU: 5 PID: 2817 Comm: bash Tainted: G S         OE      6.6.0-rc1-next-20230911 #1
> [  227.229839] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021
> [  227.229843] Call Trace:
> [  227.229848]  <TASK>
> [  227.229853]  dump_stack_lvl+0x36/0x50
> [  227.229865]  __might_resched+0x123/0x170
> [  227.229877]  mutex_lock+0x1e/0x50
> [  227.229891]  pds_vfio_put_lm_file+0x1e/0xa0 [pds_vfio_pci]
> [  227.229909]  pds_vfio_put_save_file+0x19/0x30 [pds_vfio_pci]
> [  227.229923]  pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock+0x2e/0x80 [pds_vfio_pci]
> [  227.229937]  pci_reset_function+0x4b/0x70
> [  227.229948]  reset_store+0x5b/0xa0
> [  227.229959]  kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x137/0x1d0
> [  227.229972]  vfs_write+0x2de/0x410
> [  227.229986]  ksys_write+0x5d/0xd0
> [  227.229996]  do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> [  227.230004]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
> [  227.230017] RIP: 0033:0x7fb202b1fa28
> [  227.230023] Code: 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 f3 0f 1e fa 48 8d 05 15 4d 2a 00 8b 00 85 c0 75 17 b8 01 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 58 c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 41 54 49 89 d4 55
> [  227.230028] RSP: 002b:00007fff6915fbd8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
> [  227.230036] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fb202b1fa28
> [  227.230040] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055f3834d5aa0 RDI: 0000000000000001
> [  227.230044] RBP: 000055f3834d5aa0 R08: 000000000000000a R09: 00007fb202b7fae0
> [  227.230047] R10: 000000000000000a R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fb202dc06e0
> [  227.230050] R13: 0000000000000002 R14: 00007fb202dbb860 R15: 0000000000000002
> [  227.230056]  </TASK>
> 
> This can happen if pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or
> pds_vfio_put_save_file() grab the mutex_lock(&lm_file->lock)
> while the spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) is held, which can
> happen during while calling pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock().
> 
> Fix this by releasing the spin_unlock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) before
> calling pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and pds_vfio_put_save_file() and
> re-acquiring spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) after the previously
> mentioned functions are called to protect setting the subsequent
> state/deferred reset settings.
> 
> The only possible concerns are other threads that may call
> pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or pds_vfio_put_save_file(). However,
> those paths are already protected by the state mutex_lock().

Is there another viable solution to change reset_lock to a mutex?

I think this is the origin of this algorithm:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211019191025.GA4072278@nvidia.com/

But it's not clear to me why Jason chose an example with a spinlock and
if some subtlety here requires it.  Thanks,

Alex

> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/1f9bc27b-3de9-4891-9687-ba2820c1b390@moroto.mountain/
> Signed-off-by: Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@amd.com>
> Reviewed-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@amd.com>
> ---
>  drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c
> index 9db5f2c8f1ea..6e664cb05dd1 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c
> @@ -33,8 +33,10 @@ void pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock(struct pds_vfio_pci_device *pds_vfio)
>  	if (pds_vfio->deferred_reset) {
>  		pds_vfio->deferred_reset = false;
>  		if (pds_vfio->state == VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR) {
> +			spin_unlock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock);
>  			pds_vfio_put_restore_file(pds_vfio);
>  			pds_vfio_put_save_file(pds_vfio);
> +			spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock);
>  			pds_vfio_dirty_disable(pds_vfio, false);
>  		}
>  		pds_vfio->state = pds_vfio->deferred_reset_state;
Brett Creeley Sept. 15, 2023, 3:54 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 9/14/2023 3:38 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:15:40 -0700
> Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@amd.com> wrote:
> 
>> The driver could possibly sleep while in atomic context resulting
>> in the following call trace while CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y is
>> set:
>>
>> [  227.229806] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:283
>> [  227.229818] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 2817, name: bash
>> [  227.229824] preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
>> [  227.229827] RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
>> [  227.229832] CPU: 5 PID: 2817 Comm: bash Tainted: G S         OE      6.6.0-rc1-next-20230911 #1
>> [  227.229839] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021
>> [  227.229843] Call Trace:
>> [  227.229848]  <TASK>
>> [  227.229853]  dump_stack_lvl+0x36/0x50
>> [  227.229865]  __might_resched+0x123/0x170
>> [  227.229877]  mutex_lock+0x1e/0x50
>> [  227.229891]  pds_vfio_put_lm_file+0x1e/0xa0 [pds_vfio_pci]
>> [  227.229909]  pds_vfio_put_save_file+0x19/0x30 [pds_vfio_pci]
>> [  227.229923]  pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock+0x2e/0x80 [pds_vfio_pci]
>> [  227.229937]  pci_reset_function+0x4b/0x70
>> [  227.229948]  reset_store+0x5b/0xa0
>> [  227.229959]  kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x137/0x1d0
>> [  227.229972]  vfs_write+0x2de/0x410
>> [  227.229986]  ksys_write+0x5d/0xd0
>> [  227.229996]  do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
>> [  227.230004]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
>> [  227.230017] RIP: 0033:0x7fb202b1fa28
>> [  227.230023] Code: 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 f3 0f 1e fa 48 8d 05 15 4d 2a 00 8b 00 85 c0 75 17 b8 01 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 58 c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 41 54 49 89 d4 55
>> [  227.230028] RSP: 002b:00007fff6915fbd8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
>> [  227.230036] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fb202b1fa28
>> [  227.230040] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055f3834d5aa0 RDI: 0000000000000001
>> [  227.230044] RBP: 000055f3834d5aa0 R08: 000000000000000a R09: 00007fb202b7fae0
>> [  227.230047] R10: 000000000000000a R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fb202dc06e0
>> [  227.230050] R13: 0000000000000002 R14: 00007fb202dbb860 R15: 0000000000000002
>> [  227.230056]  </TASK>
>>
>> This can happen if pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or
>> pds_vfio_put_save_file() grab the mutex_lock(&lm_file->lock)
>> while the spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) is held, which can
>> happen during while calling pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock().
>>
>> Fix this by releasing the spin_unlock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) before
>> calling pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and pds_vfio_put_save_file() and
>> re-acquiring spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) after the previously
>> mentioned functions are called to protect setting the subsequent
>> state/deferred reset settings.
>>
>> The only possible concerns are other threads that may call
>> pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or pds_vfio_put_save_file(). However,
>> those paths are already protected by the state mutex_lock().
> 
> Is there another viable solution to change reset_lock to a mutex?
> 
> I think this is the origin of this algorithm:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211019191025.GA4072278@nvidia.com/
> 
> But it's not clear to me why Jason chose an example with a spinlock and
> if some subtlety here requires it.  Thanks,
> 
> Alex

It would be good to get some feedback from Jason on this before thinking 
about a different solution.

Thanks,

Brett

> 
>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/1f9bc27b-3de9-4891-9687-ba2820c1b390@moroto.mountain/
>> Signed-off-by: Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@amd.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c
>> index 9db5f2c8f1ea..6e664cb05dd1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c
>> @@ -33,8 +33,10 @@ void pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock(struct pds_vfio_pci_device *pds_vfio)
>>        if (pds_vfio->deferred_reset) {
>>                pds_vfio->deferred_reset = false;
>>                if (pds_vfio->state == VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR) {
>> +                     spin_unlock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock);
>>                        pds_vfio_put_restore_file(pds_vfio);
>>                        pds_vfio_put_save_file(pds_vfio);
>> +                     spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock);
>>                        pds_vfio_dirty_disable(pds_vfio, false);
>>                }
>>                pds_vfio->state = pds_vfio->deferred_reset_state;
>
Jason Gunthorpe Sept. 19, 2023, 6:59 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 04:38:37PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:15:40 -0700
> Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@amd.com> wrote:
> 
> > The driver could possibly sleep while in atomic context resulting
> > in the following call trace while CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y is
> > set:
> > 
> > [  227.229806] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:283
> > [  227.229818] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 2817, name: bash
> > [  227.229824] preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
> > [  227.229827] RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
> > [  227.229832] CPU: 5 PID: 2817 Comm: bash Tainted: G S         OE      6.6.0-rc1-next-20230911 #1
> > [  227.229839] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021
> > [  227.229843] Call Trace:
> > [  227.229848]  <TASK>
> > [  227.229853]  dump_stack_lvl+0x36/0x50
> > [  227.229865]  __might_resched+0x123/0x170
> > [  227.229877]  mutex_lock+0x1e/0x50
> > [  227.229891]  pds_vfio_put_lm_file+0x1e/0xa0 [pds_vfio_pci]
> > [  227.229909]  pds_vfio_put_save_file+0x19/0x30 [pds_vfio_pci]
> > [  227.229923]  pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock+0x2e/0x80 [pds_vfio_pci]
> > [  227.229937]  pci_reset_function+0x4b/0x70
> > [  227.229948]  reset_store+0x5b/0xa0
> > [  227.229959]  kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x137/0x1d0
> > [  227.229972]  vfs_write+0x2de/0x410
> > [  227.229986]  ksys_write+0x5d/0xd0
> > [  227.229996]  do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
> > [  227.230004]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
> > [  227.230017] RIP: 0033:0x7fb202b1fa28
> > [  227.230023] Code: 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 f3 0f 1e fa 48 8d 05 15 4d 2a 00 8b 00 85 c0 75 17 b8 01 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 58 c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 41 54 49 89 d4 55
> > [  227.230028] RSP: 002b:00007fff6915fbd8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
> > [  227.230036] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fb202b1fa28
> > [  227.230040] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055f3834d5aa0 RDI: 0000000000000001
> > [  227.230044] RBP: 000055f3834d5aa0 R08: 000000000000000a R09: 00007fb202b7fae0
> > [  227.230047] R10: 000000000000000a R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fb202dc06e0
> > [  227.230050] R13: 0000000000000002 R14: 00007fb202dbb860 R15: 0000000000000002
> > [  227.230056]  </TASK>

I usually encourage people to trim the oops, remove the time stamp at least.
> > 
> > This can happen if pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or
> > pds_vfio_put_save_file() grab the mutex_lock(&lm_file->lock)
> > while the spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) is held, which can
> > happen during while calling pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock().
> > 
> > Fix this by releasing the spin_unlock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) before
> > calling pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and pds_vfio_put_save_file() and
> > re-acquiring spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) after the previously
> > mentioned functions are called to protect setting the subsequent
> > state/deferred reset settings.
> > 
> > The only possible concerns are other threads that may call
> > pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or pds_vfio_put_save_file(). However,
> > those paths are already protected by the state mutex_lock().
> 
> Is there another viable solution to change reset_lock to a mutex?
> 
> I think this is the origin of this algorithm:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211019191025.GA4072278@nvidia.com/
> 
> But it's not clear to me why Jason chose an example with a spinlock and
> if some subtlety here requires it.  Thanks,

I think there was no specific reason it must be a spinlock

Certainly I'm not feeling comfortable just unlocking and relocking
like that. It would need a big explanation why it is safe in a
comment.

Jason
Brett Creeley Sept. 21, 2023, 2:49 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 9/19/2023 11:59 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 04:38:37PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:15:40 -0700
>> Brett Creeley <brett.creeley@amd.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The driver could possibly sleep while in atomic context resulting
>>> in the following call trace while CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y is
>>> set:
>>>
>>> [  227.229806] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:283
>>> [  227.229818] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 2817, name: bash
>>> [  227.229824] preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
>>> [  227.229827] RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
>>> [  227.229832] CPU: 5 PID: 2817 Comm: bash Tainted: G S         OE      6.6.0-rc1-next-20230911 #1
>>> [  227.229839] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen10/ProLiant DL360 Gen10, BIOS U32 01/23/2021
>>> [  227.229843] Call Trace:
>>> [  227.229848]  <TASK>
>>> [  227.229853]  dump_stack_lvl+0x36/0x50
>>> [  227.229865]  __might_resched+0x123/0x170
>>> [  227.229877]  mutex_lock+0x1e/0x50
>>> [  227.229891]  pds_vfio_put_lm_file+0x1e/0xa0 [pds_vfio_pci]
>>> [  227.229909]  pds_vfio_put_save_file+0x19/0x30 [pds_vfio_pci]
>>> [  227.229923]  pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock+0x2e/0x80 [pds_vfio_pci]
>>> [  227.229937]  pci_reset_function+0x4b/0x70
>>> [  227.229948]  reset_store+0x5b/0xa0
>>> [  227.229959]  kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x137/0x1d0
>>> [  227.229972]  vfs_write+0x2de/0x410
>>> [  227.229986]  ksys_write+0x5d/0xd0
>>> [  227.229996]  do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
>>> [  227.230004]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
>>> [  227.230017] RIP: 0033:0x7fb202b1fa28
>>> [  227.230023] Code: 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 f3 0f 1e fa 48 8d 05 15 4d 2a 00 8b 00 85 c0 75 17 b8 01 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 58 c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 41 54 49 89 d4 55
>>> [  227.230028] RSP: 002b:00007fff6915fbd8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
>>> [  227.230036] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fb202b1fa28
>>> [  227.230040] RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055f3834d5aa0 RDI: 0000000000000001
>>> [  227.230044] RBP: 000055f3834d5aa0 R08: 000000000000000a R09: 00007fb202b7fae0
>>> [  227.230047] R10: 000000000000000a R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fb202dc06e0
>>> [  227.230050] R13: 0000000000000002 R14: 00007fb202dbb860 R15: 0000000000000002
>>> [  227.230056]  </TASK>
> 
> I usually encourage people to trim the oops, remove the time stamp at least.

Makes sense. I will remember that going forward. Thanks for the suggestion.

Brett

>>>
>>> This can happen if pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or
>>> pds_vfio_put_save_file() grab the mutex_lock(&lm_file->lock)
>>> while the spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) is held, which can
>>> happen during while calling pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock().
>>>
>>> Fix this by releasing the spin_unlock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) before
>>> calling pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and pds_vfio_put_save_file() and
>>> re-acquiring spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock) after the previously
>>> mentioned functions are called to protect setting the subsequent
>>> state/deferred reset settings.
>>>
>>> The only possible concerns are other threads that may call
>>> pds_vfio_put_restore_file() and/or pds_vfio_put_save_file(). However,
>>> those paths are already protected by the state mutex_lock().
>>
>> Is there another viable solution to change reset_lock to a mutex?
>>
>> I think this is the origin of this algorithm:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211019191025.GA4072278@nvidia.com/
>>
>> But it's not clear to me why Jason chose an example with a spinlock and
>> if some subtlety here requires it.  Thanks,
> 
> I think there was no specific reason it must be a spinlock
> 
> Certainly I'm not feeling comfortable just unlocking and relocking
> like that. It would need a big explanation why it is safe in a
> comment.

This follows the example in mlx5vf_state_mutex_unlock(), which releases 
the spinlock before calling mlx5vf_disable_fds().

However, there is a small difference where 
pds_vfio->deferred_reset_state could change in the window where the 
reset_lock isn't held. It seems this can be fixed this by a local 
deferred_reset_state in pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock() that I set before 
unlocking to clear the fds.

Thanks,

Brett
> 
> Jason
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c
index 9db5f2c8f1ea..6e664cb05dd1 100644
--- a/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c
+++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/pds/vfio_dev.c
@@ -33,8 +33,10 @@  void pds_vfio_state_mutex_unlock(struct pds_vfio_pci_device *pds_vfio)
 	if (pds_vfio->deferred_reset) {
 		pds_vfio->deferred_reset = false;
 		if (pds_vfio->state == VFIO_DEVICE_STATE_ERROR) {
+			spin_unlock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock);
 			pds_vfio_put_restore_file(pds_vfio);
 			pds_vfio_put_save_file(pds_vfio);
+			spin_lock(&pds_vfio->reset_lock);
 			pds_vfio_dirty_disable(pds_vfio, false);
 		}
 		pds_vfio->state = pds_vfio->deferred_reset_state;