linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 25/20] sysfs: Only support removing emtpy sysfs directories.

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0905271710040.2669-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2009 17:31:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
cc:	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 25/20] sysfs: Only support removing emtpy sysfs  directories.

On Wed, 27 May 2009, James Bottomley wrote:

> > I can't tell whether you understood my point.  After a scsi_device is
> > unregistered but before it is released -- i.e., when its state is
> > SDEV_DEL -- it _is_ essentially unusable.  So why wait until it is
> > released to decrement the target's device counter?  Why not do the
> > decrement in __scsi_remove_device()?
> 
> because the use model of the device still requires a valid target.  Even
> though it gets gated in several places in SDEV_DEL, we still have use of
> the target parent.  This is fixable, but only by a long audit of all the
> sdev uses plus the enforcement of no use of target in DEL state rule,
> which adds complexity.

You're failing to distinguish properly between "delete" and "release".  
A target (or device in general) is deleted when it is removed from
visibility -- i.e., when device_del() is called.  It is released when
the final put_device() call occurs and the data structure is
deallocated.

So, all I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with deleting a target
when all its children are deleted, provided the target isn't released
until all the children are released.  Below you say the same thing.


> > > Perhaps I haven't made the problem clear enough.  You only want early
> > > del if the host is going away, otherwise the target might be reused and
> > > it can't be if you've called del on it.  So there needs to be an
> > > integration into the host lifecycle in some form.
> > 
> > Yes, granted.  That integration doesn't have to be complicated.  
> > Basically, you just decrement the counters in all the targets when
> > setting a host's state to SHOST_DEL or SHOST_DEL_RECOVERY.  At that 
> 
> And SHOST_CANCEL and SHOST_CANCEL_RECOVERY.

If you prefer.  I thought SHOST_DEL would be more appropriate because
it occurs after scsi_forget_host() is called.  All those transitions
occur in scsi_remove_host(), anyway.

> > point there's no reason to keep an unpopulated target around, right?
> 
> If the child list were empty, sure.  However, it's likely not going to
> be at this point.

Regardless, it will work either way.

> > Up until that point, the counter's value should be one more than the
> > number of underlying sdevs.  So if the counter decrements to 0 then
> > there were no underlying sdevs and the target is deleted immediately;
> > otherwise it is deleted when the last remaining sdev is deleted.
> 
> No, that's the problem.  It can be removed from visibility if it has no
> visible sdevs, but it can't be deleted until the last sdev is released.

Allow me to rephrase this: A target can be removed from visibility if 
it has no visible sdevs, but it can't be _released_ until the last sdev 
is released.

That's fine.  You remove a target from visibility when target->reap_ref
becomes 0.  The target isn't released until the target's embedded
struct device's refcount becomes 0.  To make this work, simply have
scsi_alloc_sdev() call

	get_device(&starget->dev);

and have scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext() call

	put_device(&starget->dev);

Doesn't that do exactly what you're asking for?

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/