[PATCH 1/2] iommu/vt-d: Fix lock inversion between iommu->lock and device_domain_lock

[Lu Baolu]

Hi Chris,

On 6/19/19 5:02 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Lu Baolu (2019-05-21 08:30:15)
>> From: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang at intel.com>
>>
>> Lockdep debug reported lock inversion related with the iommu code
>> caused by dmar_insert_one_dev_info() grabbing the iommu->lock and
>> the device_domain_lock out of order versus the code path in
>> iommu_flush_dev_iotlb(). Expanding the scope of the iommu->lock and
>> reversing the order of lock acquisition fixes the issue.
> 
> Which of course violates the property that device_domain_lock is the
> outer lock...

Agreed.

I also realized that this might be an incorrect fix. I am looking into
it and will submit a new fix later.

Best regards,
Lu Baolu

> 
> <4>[    1.252997] ======================================================
> <4>[    1.252999] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> <4>[    1.253002] 5.2.0-rc5-CI-CI_DRM_6299+ #1 Not tainted
> <4>[    1.253004] ------------------------------------------------------
> <4>[    1.253006] swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> <4>[    1.253009] 0000000091462475 (&(&iommu->lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: domain_context_mapping_one+0xa0/0x4f0
> <4>[    1.253015]
>                    but task is already holding lock:
> <4>[    1.253017] 0000000069266737 (device_domain_lock){....}, at: domain_context_mapping_one+0x88/0x4f0
> <4>[    1.253021]
>                    which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
> <4>[    1.253024]
>                    the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> <4>[    1.253027]
>                    -> #1 (device_domain_lock){....}:
> <4>[    1.253031]        _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x33/0x50
> <4>[    1.253034]        dmar_insert_one_dev_info+0xb8/0x520
> <4>[    1.253036]        set_domain_for_dev+0x66/0xf0
> <4>[    1.253039]        iommu_prepare_identity_map+0x48/0x95
> <4>[    1.253042]        intel_iommu_init+0xfd8/0x138d
> <4>[    1.253045]        pci_iommu_init+0x11/0x3a
> <4>[    1.253048]        do_one_initcall+0x58/0x300
> <4>[    1.253051]        kernel_init_freeable+0x2c0/0x359
> <4>[    1.253054]        kernel_init+0x5/0x100
> <4>[    1.253056]        ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
> <4>[    1.253058]
>                    -> #0 (&(&iommu->lock)->rlock){+.+.}:
> <4>[    1.253062]        lock_acquire+0xa6/0x1c0
> <4>[    1.253064]        _raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
> <4>[    1.253067]        domain_context_mapping_one+0xa0/0x4f0
> <4>[    1.253070]        pci_for_each_dma_alias+0x2b/0x160
> <4>[    1.253072]        dmar_insert_one_dev_info+0x44e/0x520
> <4>[    1.253075]        set_domain_for_dev+0x66/0xf0
> <4>[    1.253077]        iommu_prepare_identity_map+0x48/0x95
> <4>[    1.253080]        intel_iommu_init+0xfd8/0x138d
> <4>[    1.253082]        pci_iommu_init+0x11/0x3a
> <4>[    1.253084]        do_one_initcall+0x58/0x300
> <4>[    1.253086]        kernel_init_freeable+0x2c0/0x359
> <4>[    1.253089]        kernel_init+0x5/0x100
> <4>[    1.253091]        ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
> <4>[    1.253093]
>                    other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> <4>[    1.253095]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
> <4>[    1.253095]        CPU0                    CPU1
> <4>[    1.253095]        ----                    ----
> <4>[    1.253095]   lock(device_domain_lock);
> <4>[    1.253095]                                lock(&(&iommu->lock)->rlock);
> <4>[    1.253095]                                lock(device_domain_lock);
> <4>[    1.253095]   lock(&(&iommu->lock)->rlock);
> <4>[    1.253095]
>                     *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> <4>[    1.253095] 2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
> <4>[    1.253095]  #0: 0000000076465a1e (dmar_global_lock){++++}, at: intel_iommu_init+0x1d3/0x138d
> <4>[    1.253095]  #1: 0000000069266737 (device_domain_lock){....}, at: domain_context_mapping_one+0x88/0x4f0
> <4>[    1.253095]
>                    stack backtrace:
> <4>[    1.253095] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.2.0-rc5-CI-CI_DRM_6299+ #1
> <4>[    1.253095] Hardware name:  /NUC5i7RYB, BIOS RYBDWi35.86A.0362.2017.0118.0940 01/18/2017
> <4>[    1.253095] Call Trace:
> <4>[    1.253095]  dump_stack+0x67/0x9b
> <4>[    1.253095]  print_circular_bug+0x1c8/0x2b0
> <4>[    1.253095]  __lock_acquire+0x1ce9/0x24c0
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? lock_acquire+0xa6/0x1c0
> <4>[    1.253095]  lock_acquire+0xa6/0x1c0
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? domain_context_mapping_one+0xa0/0x4f0
> <4>[    1.253095]  _raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? domain_context_mapping_one+0xa0/0x4f0
> <4>[    1.253095]  domain_context_mapping_one+0xa0/0x4f0
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? domain_context_mapping_one+0x4f0/0x4f0
> <4>[    1.253095]  pci_for_each_dma_alias+0x2b/0x160
> <4>[    1.253095]  dmar_insert_one_dev_info+0x44e/0x520
> <4>[    1.253095]  set_domain_for_dev+0x66/0xf0
> <4>[    1.253095]  iommu_prepare_identity_map+0x48/0x95
> <4>[    1.253095]  intel_iommu_init+0xfd8/0x138d
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? set_debug_rodata+0xc/0xc
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? set_debug_rodata+0xc/0xc
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? e820__memblock_setup+0x5b/0x5b
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? pci_iommu_init+0x11/0x3a
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? set_debug_rodata+0xc/0xc
> <4>[    1.253095]  pci_iommu_init+0x11/0x3a
> <4>[    1.253095]  do_one_initcall+0x58/0x300
> <4>[    1.253095]  kernel_init_freeable+0x2c0/0x359
> <4>[    1.253095]  ? rest_init+0x250/0x250
> <4>[    1.253095]  kernel_init+0x5/0x100
> <4>[    1.253095]  ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
>