Re: [PATCH] mlx4: prevent the device from being removed concurrently

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Tuesday 28 February 2012 22:46, David Miller wrote:
> From: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:34:38 -0300
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 02:30:51PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:36:16 -0300
> >> 
> >> > When a EEH happens, the catas poll code will try to restart the device,
> >> > removing it and adding it back again. The EEH code will try to do the
> >> > same. One of the threads ends up accessing memory that was freed by the
> >> > other thread and we get a crash.
> >> 
> >> Stop adding bandaids to the locking.
> >> 
> >> If the EEH infrastructure doesn't synchronize parallel operations
> >> on the same device, that is the real bug, and that's where the real
> >> fix belongs.
> >> 
> >> I refuse to apply this patch.
> >> 
> > 
> > It's not EEH that does not synchronize removal. The problem is that the
> > driver itself calls the driver remove function through mlx4_restart_one.
> 
> Then reuse the existing intf_mutex this driver has, export it to
> main.c and add a new __mlx4_unregister_device that can be called
> with the intf_mutex held already.
> 
Some comments.

1. Mr Cascardo's solution is only partial, and does not cover all the problem cases. He
   simply uncovered one of several examples of what lack-of-sync will do when removing a device.
   Mr. Cascardo found the kernel Oops that happens when a catastrophic error occurs during device
   removal. What if we receive a catas error while doing "init_one"?  What if we are in the middle
   of catas error recovery (in the init_one stage), and we get a remove_one request from higher up?

   There is a solution for this precise problem in the mthca driver (infiniband/hw/mthca/mthca_main.c
   infiniband/hw/mthca/mthca_catas.c). In the mthca driver, we DO in fact use an "mthca_device_mutex"
   for precisely the reason given in a. above.  I see no reason not to do the same thing here.

   This requires:
	1. mlx4_init_one(), mlx4_remove_one() and mlx4_restart_one all grab an mlx4_device_mutex.
        2. new procedure __mlx4_remove_one(), which does not grab the mutex.

   Note that it is NOT enough to simply protect the removal operation.  The protection must wrap the
   ENTIRE restart operation (both removal and init), because allowing a remove in the middle of init_one
   or restart_one would probably also cause a kernel Oops.

2. The intf_mutex is used with mlx4_un/register_device and mlx4_un/register_interface. unregister_device is
   used both in remove_one and in mlx4_change_port_types.  I would hesitate to grab that mutex for a more
   global use.  I think it is cleaner to add a device mutex (mlx4_device_mutex) for initializing/removing/
   restarting the device.

-Jack
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Home]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Devices]

Add to Google Powered by Linux