linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] New Microsemi PCI Switch Management Driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:50:47 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Wei Zhang <wzhang@...com>,
        Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>,
        Stephen Bates <stephen.bates@...rosemi.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] New Microsemi PCI Switch Management Driver

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:23:38PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:

> > That could help, but this would mean cdev would have to insert a shim
> > to grab locks around the various file ops.
> 
> Hmm, I was hoping something more along the lines of actually killing the
> processes instead of just shimming away fops.

That would probably make most cdev users unhappy, it is not what we
want in tpm or infiniband, for instance.

> > AFAIK TPM is correct and has been robustly tested now. We have a 'vtpm'
> > driver that agressively uses hot-unplug.
> 
> Switchtec is a bit more tricky because a) there's no upper level driver
> to handle things

Introducing a light split between 'the upper part that owns the cdev'
and 'the lower part that owns the hardware' makes things much easier
to understand in a driver and it becomes clearer where, eg, devm
actions should be linked (ie probably not to the cdev part)

> and b) userspace may be inside a wait_for_completion (via read or
> poll) that needs to be completed. If a so called 'cdev_kill' could
> actually just kill these processes it would be a bit easier.

For TPM, poll could be something like:

static unsigned int tpm_poll(struct file *filp,
                             struct poll_table_struct *wait)
{
   poll_wait(filp, &chip->poll_wait, wait);
   if (tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
          mask = chip->ops->driver_do_poll(...);
          tpm_put_ops(chip);
   } else 
          mask = POLLIN | POLLRDHUP | POLLOUT | POLLERR | POLLHUP;
   return mask;
}

And we would trigger chip->poll_wait in the unregister.

wait_for_completion is similar, drop the rwsem while sleeping, add
'ops = NULL' to the sleeping condition test, trigger the wait on
unregister then reacquire the rwsem and test ops on wake.

Jason