commit f1d048f24e upstream.
We sometimes observe a 'deadly embrace' type deadlock occurring
between mutually connected sockets on the same node. This happens
when the one-hour peer supervision timers happen to expire
simultaneously in both sockets.
The scenario is as follows:
CPU 1: CPU 2:
-------- --------
tipc_sk_timeout(sk1) tipc_sk_timeout(sk2)
lock(sk1.slock) lock(sk2.slock)
msg_create(probe) msg_create(probe)
unlock(sk1.slock) unlock(sk2.slock)
tipc_node_xmit_skb() tipc_node_xmit_skb()
tipc_node_xmit() tipc_node_xmit()
tipc_sk_rcv(sk2) tipc_sk_rcv(sk1)
lock(sk2.slock) lock((sk1.slock)
filter_rcv() filter_rcv()
tipc_sk_proto_rcv() tipc_sk_proto_rcv()
msg_create(probe_rsp) msg_create(probe_rsp)
tipc_sk_respond() tipc_sk_respond()
tipc_node_xmit_skb() tipc_node_xmit_skb()
tipc_node_xmit() tipc_node_xmit()
tipc_sk_rcv(sk1) tipc_sk_rcv(sk2)
lock((sk1.slock) lock((sk2.slock)
===> DEADLOCK ===> DEADLOCK
Further analysis reveals that there are three different locations in the
socket code where tipc_sk_respond() is called within the context of the
socket lock, with ensuing risk of similar deadlocks.
We now solve this by passing a buffer queue along with all upcalls where
sk_lock.slock may potentially be held. Response or rejected message
buffers are accumulated into this queue instead of being sent out
directly, and only sent once we know we are safely outside the slock
context.
Reported-by: GUNA <gbalasun@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Ying Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
59e0cd110f