[v2,0/8] Remove adis_initial_startup usage

Message ID 20221103080847.162509-1-ramona.bolboaca@analog.com
Headers
Series Remove adis_initial_startup usage |

Message

Ramona Bolboaca Nov. 3, 2022, 8:08 a.m. UTC
  Remove 'adis_initial_startup()' usage due to the fact that it leads to a 
deadlock.
The same mutex is acquired twice, without releasing it, once inside
'adis_initial_startup()' and once inside 'adis_enable_irq()'.
Instead of 'adis_initial_startup()', use '__adis_initial_startup()'.

Ramona Bolboaca (8):
  iio: accel: adis16201: Fix deadlock in probe
  iio: accel: adis16209: Fix deadlock in probe
  iio: gyro: adis16136: Fix deadlock in probe
  iio: gyro: adis16260: Fix deadlock in probe
  iio: imu: adis16400: Fix deadlock in probe
  staging: iio: accel: adis16203: Fix deadlock in probe
  staging: iio: accel: adis16240: Fix deadlock in probe
  iio: imu: adis: Remove adis_initial_startup function

 drivers/iio/accel/adis16201.c         |  2 +-
 drivers/iio/accel/adis16209.c         |  2 +-
 drivers/iio/gyro/adis16136.c          |  2 +-
 drivers/iio/gyro/adis16260.c          |  2 +-
 drivers/iio/imu/adis16400.c           |  2 +-
 drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16203.c |  2 +-
 drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16240.c |  2 +-
 include/linux/iio/imu/adis.h          | 12 ------------
 8 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
  

Comments

Sa, Nuno Nov. 3, 2022, 12:35 p.m. UTC | #1
> From: Ramona Bolboaca <ramona.bolboaca@analog.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:09 AM
> To: jic23@kernel.org; linux-iio@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Bolboaca, Ramona <Ramona.Bolboaca@analog.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v2 0/8] Remove adis_initial_startup usage
> 
> 
> Remove 'adis_initial_startup()' usage due to the fact that it leads to a
> deadlock.
> The same mutex is acquired twice, without releasing it, once inside
> 'adis_initial_startup()' and once inside 'adis_enable_irq()'.
> Instead of 'adis_initial_startup()', use '__adis_initial_startup()'.
> 
> Ramona Bolboaca (8):
>   iio: accel: adis16201: Fix deadlock in probe
>   iio: accel: adis16209: Fix deadlock in probe
>   iio: gyro: adis16136: Fix deadlock in probe
>   iio: gyro: adis16260: Fix deadlock in probe
>   iio: imu: adis16400: Fix deadlock in probe
>   staging: iio: accel: adis16203: Fix deadlock in probe
>   staging: iio: accel: adis16240: Fix deadlock in probe
>   iio: imu: adis: Remove adis_initial_startup function
> 
>  drivers/iio/accel/adis16201.c         |  2 +-
>  drivers/iio/accel/adis16209.c         |  2 +-
>  drivers/iio/gyro/adis16136.c          |  2 +-
>  drivers/iio/gyro/adis16260.c          |  2 +-
>  drivers/iio/imu/adis16400.c           |  2 +-
>  drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16203.c |  2 +-
>  drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16240.c |  2 +-
>  include/linux/iio/imu/adis.h          | 12 ------------
>  8 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 

You could have placed your v2 changelog in the cover letter.
Moreover it's the same for all patches... Anyways: 

Reviewed-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com>

- Nuno Sá
  
Jonathan Cameron Nov. 5, 2022, 3:06 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 12:35:31 +0000
"Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@analog.com> wrote:

> > From: Ramona Bolboaca <ramona.bolboaca@analog.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:09 AM
> > To: jic23@kernel.org; linux-iio@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> > kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: Bolboaca, Ramona <Ramona.Bolboaca@analog.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH v2 0/8] Remove adis_initial_startup usage
> > 
> > 
> > Remove 'adis_initial_startup()' usage due to the fact that it leads to a
> > deadlock.
> > The same mutex is acquired twice, without releasing it, once inside
> > 'adis_initial_startup()' and once inside 'adis_enable_irq()'.
> > Instead of 'adis_initial_startup()', use '__adis_initial_startup()'.
> > 
> > Ramona Bolboaca (8):
> >   iio: accel: adis16201: Fix deadlock in probe
> >   iio: accel: adis16209: Fix deadlock in probe
> >   iio: gyro: adis16136: Fix deadlock in probe
> >   iio: gyro: adis16260: Fix deadlock in probe
> >   iio: imu: adis16400: Fix deadlock in probe
> >   staging: iio: accel: adis16203: Fix deadlock in probe
> >   staging: iio: accel: adis16240: Fix deadlock in probe
> >   iio: imu: adis: Remove adis_initial_startup function
> > 
> >  drivers/iio/accel/adis16201.c         |  2 +-
> >  drivers/iio/accel/adis16209.c         |  2 +-
> >  drivers/iio/gyro/adis16136.c          |  2 +-
> >  drivers/iio/gyro/adis16260.c          |  2 +-
> >  drivers/iio/imu/adis16400.c           |  2 +-
> >  drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16203.c |  2 +-
> >  drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16240.c |  2 +-
> >  include/linux/iio/imu/adis.h          | 12 ------------
> >  8 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >   
> 
> You could have placed your v2 changelog in the cover letter.
> Moreover it's the same for all patches... Anyways: 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com>

This feels a little backwards.  Normally we'd expect the
outer function to take the lock and the inner call to not
do so.  Now it's fine to not take the lock here at all because
the outer function call is in probe anyway, before we reach
the point where there should be an concurrency.

I wonder if we should instead do this by having
an unlocked __adis_enable_irq() that is always called
by __adis_initial_startup().  That would be the fix that
then needs backporting.

Switching the calls from adis_initial_startup() to
__adis_initial_startup() would then just be a trivial
optimization to not take locks before they should ever matter.

This all hinges on my assumption that the lock isn't useful.
Am I right on that?

Jonathan


> 
> - Nuno Sá
  
Nuno Sá Nov. 15, 2022, 12:47 p.m. UTC | #3
On Sat, 2022-11-05 at 15:06 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 12:35:31 +0000
> "Sa, Nuno" <Nuno.Sa@analog.com> wrote:
> 
> > > From: Ramona Bolboaca <ramona.bolboaca@analog.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:09 AM
> > > To: jic23@kernel.org; linux-iio@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> > > kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: Bolboaca, Ramona <Ramona.Bolboaca@analog.com>
> > > Subject: [PATCH v2 0/8] Remove adis_initial_startup usage
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Remove 'adis_initial_startup()' usage due to the fact that it
> > > leads to a
> > > deadlock.
> > > The same mutex is acquired twice, without releasing it, once
> > > inside
> > > 'adis_initial_startup()' and once inside 'adis_enable_irq()'.
> > > Instead of 'adis_initial_startup()', use
> > > '__adis_initial_startup()'.
> > > 
> > > Ramona Bolboaca (8):
> > >   iio: accel: adis16201: Fix deadlock in probe
> > >   iio: accel: adis16209: Fix deadlock in probe
> > >   iio: gyro: adis16136: Fix deadlock in probe
> > >   iio: gyro: adis16260: Fix deadlock in probe
> > >   iio: imu: adis16400: Fix deadlock in probe
> > >   staging: iio: accel: adis16203: Fix deadlock in probe
> > >   staging: iio: accel: adis16240: Fix deadlock in probe
> > >   iio: imu: adis: Remove adis_initial_startup function
> > > 
> > >  drivers/iio/accel/adis16201.c         |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/iio/accel/adis16209.c         |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/iio/gyro/adis16136.c          |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/iio/gyro/adis16260.c          |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/iio/imu/adis16400.c           |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16203.c |  2 +-
> > >  drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16240.c |  2 +-
> > >  include/linux/iio/imu/adis.h          | 12 ------------
> > >  8 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> > >   
> > 
> > You could have placed your v2 changelog in the cover letter.
> > Moreover it's the same for all patches... Anyways: 
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com>
> 
> This feels a little backwards.  Normally we'd expect the
> outer function to take the lock and the inner call to not
> do so.  Now it's fine to not take the lock here at all because
> the outer function call is in probe anyway, before we reach
> the point where there should be an concurrency.
> 
> I wonder if we should instead do this by having
> an unlocked __adis_enable_irq() that is always called
> by __adis_initial_startup().  That would be the fix that
> then needs backporting.
> 

I did mentioned the same thing in the first version of the series but
did not really pushed for it. Now that you mention, I agree it feels
weird (and wrong from a design perspective) to have the lock,
"silently", taken inside a function starting with double underscore
(which should mean unlocked call).

> Switching the calls from adis_initial_startup() to
> __adis_initial_startup() would then just be a trivial
> optimization to not take locks before they should ever matter.
> 
> This all hinges on my assumption that the lock isn't useful.
> Am I right on that?
> 

I think so as all the calls happen during probe before registering the
userspace interface.

- Nuno Sá