usb: typec: tcpm: Fix AB BA lock inversion between tcpm code and the alt-mode drivers

usb: typec: tcpm: Fix AB BA lock inversion between tcpm code and the alt-mode drivers

When we receive a PD data packet which ends up being for the alt-mode
driver we have the following lock order:

1. tcpm_pd_rx_handler take the tcpm-port lock
2. We call into the alt-mode driver which takes the alt-mode's lock

And when the alt-mode driver initiates communication we have the following
lock order:

3. alt-mode driver takes the alt-mode's lock
4. alt-mode driver calls tcpm_altmode_enter which takes the tcpm-port lock

This is a classic AB BA lock inversion issue.

With the refactoring of tcpm_handle_vdm_request() done before this patch,
we don't rely on, or need to make changes to the tcpm-port data by the
time we make call 2. from above. All data to be passed to the alt-mode
driver sits on our stack at this point, and thus does not need locking.

So after the refactoring we can simply fix this by releasing the
tcpm-port lock before calling into the alt-mode driver.

This fixes the following lockdep warning:

[  191.454238] ======================================================
[  191.454240] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[  191.454244] 5.8.0-rc5+ #1 Not tainted
[  191.454246] ------------------------------------------------------
[  191.454248] kworker/u8:5/794 is trying to acquire lock:
[  191.454251] ffff9bac8e30d4a8 (&dp->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: dp_altmode_vdm+0x30/0xf0 [typec_displayport]
[  191.454263]
               but task is already holding lock:
[  191.454264] ffff9bac9dc240a0 (&port->lock#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: tcpm_pd_rx_handler+0x43/0x12c0 [tcpm]
[  191.454273]
               which lock already depends on the new lock.

[  191.454275]
               the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[  191.454277]
               -> #1 (&port->lock#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[  191.454286]        __mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820
[  191.454290]        tcpm_altmode_enter+0x23/0x90 [tcpm]
[  191.454293]        dp_altmode_work+0xca/0xe0 [typec_displayport]
[  191.454299]        process_one_work+0x23f/0x570
[  191.454302]        worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
[  191.454305]        kthread+0x138/0x160
[  191.454309]        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[  191.454311]
               -> #0 (&dp->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[  191.454317]        __lock_acquire+0x1241/0x2090
[  191.454320]        lock_acquire+0xa4/0x3d0
[  191.454323]        __mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820
[  191.454326]        dp_altmode_vdm+0x30/0xf0 [typec_displayport]
[  191.454330]        tcpm_pd_rx_handler+0x11ae/0x12c0 [tcpm]
[  191.454333]        process_one_work+0x23f/0x570
[  191.454336]        worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
[  191.454338]        kthread+0x138/0x160
[  191.454341]        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[  191.454343]
               other info that might help us debug this:

[  191.454345]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

[  191.454347]        CPU0                    CPU1
[  191.454348]        ----                    ----
[  191.454350]   lock(&port->lock#2);
[  191.454353]                                lock(&dp->lock);
[  191.454355]                                lock(&port->lock#2);
[  191.454357]   lock(&dp->lock);
[  191.454360]
                *** DEADLOCK ***

Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200724174702.61754-5-hdegoede@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>