fb: reorder the lock sequence to fix potential dead lock
Following commits: 50e244cc fb: rework locking to fix lock ordering on takeover e93a9a86 fb: Yet another band-aid for fixing lockdep mess 054430e7 fbcon: fix locking harder reworked locking to fix related lock ordering on takeover, and introduced console_lock into fbmem, but it seems that the new lock sequence(fb_info->lock ---> console_lock) is against with the one in console_callback(console_lock ---> fb_info->lock), and leads to a potential dead lock as following: [ 601.079000] ====================================================== [ 601.079000] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [ 601.079000] 3.11.0 #189 Not tainted [ 601.079000] ------------------------------------------------------- [ 601.079000] kworker/0:3/619 is trying to acquire lock: [ 601.079000] (&fb_info->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81397566>] lock_fb_info+0x26/0x60 [ 601.079000] but task is already holding lock: [ 601.079000] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8141aae3>] console_callback+0x13/0x160 [ 601.079000] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 601.079000] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 601.079000] -> #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}: [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff810dc971>] lock_acquire+0xa1/0x140 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff810c6267>] console_lock+0x77/0x80 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81399448>] register_framebuffer+0x1d8/0x320 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81cfb4c8>] efifb_probe+0x408/0x48f [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff8144a963>] platform_drv_probe+0x43/0x80 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff8144853b>] driver_probe_device+0x8b/0x390 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff814488eb>] __driver_attach+0xab/0xb0 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff814463bd>] bus_for_each_dev+0x5d/0xa0 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81447e6e>] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81447a07>] bus_add_driver+0x117/0x290 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81448fea>] driver_register+0x7a/0x170 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff8144a10a>] __platform_driver_register+0x4a/0x50 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff8144a12d>] platform_driver_probe+0x1d/0xb0 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81cfb0a1>] efifb_init+0x273/0x292 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81002132>] do_one_initcall+0x102/0x1c0 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81cb80a6>] kernel_init_freeable+0x15d/0x1ef [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff8166d2de>] kernel_init+0xe/0xf0 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff816914ec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 601.079000] -> #0 (&fb_info->lock){+.+.+.}: [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff810dc1d8>] __lock_acquire+0x1e18/0x1f10 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff810dc971>] lock_acquire+0xa1/0x140 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff816835ca>] mutex_lock_nested+0x7a/0x3b0 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81397566>] lock_fb_info+0x26/0x60 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff813a4aeb>] fbcon_blank+0x29b/0x2e0 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81418658>] do_blank_screen+0x1d8/0x280 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff8141ab34>] console_callback+0x64/0x160 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff8108d855>] process_one_work+0x1f5/0x540 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff8108e04c>] worker_thread+0x11c/0x370 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff81095fbd>] kthread+0xed/0x100 [ 601.079000] [<ffffffff816914ec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 601.079000] other info that might help us debug this: [ 601.079000] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 601.079000] CPU0 CPU1 [ 601.079000] ---- ---- [ 601.079000] lock(console_lock); [ 601.079000] lock(&fb_info->lock); [ 601.079000] lock(console_lock); [ 601.079000] lock(&fb_info->lock); [ 601.079000] *** DEADLOCK *** so we reorder the lock sequence the same as it in console_callback() to avoid this issue. And following Tomi's suggestion, fix these similar issues all in fb subsystem. Signed-off-by: NGu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: NTomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录