linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] USB host: Fix lockdep warning in AMD PLL quirk

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.4.44L0.1104111221000.1975-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:25:07 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Roedel, Joerg" <Joerg.Roedel@....com>
cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Xu, Andiry" <Andiry.Xu@....com>,
	USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] USB host: Fix lockdep warning in AMD PLL quirk

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Roedel, Joerg wrote:

> > > +commit:
> > > +
> > > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&amd_lock, flags);
> > > +	if (amd_chipset.probe_count > 0) {
> > > +		/* race - someone else was faster - drop devices */
> > > +
> > > +		/* Mark that we where here */
> > > +		amd_chipset.probe_count++;
> > 
> > This line should be moved above the "if" statement, since you always 
> > want to increment the count.
> 
> No, probe_count can't be incremented here because the probe is not
> finished yet.

I don't follow you.  Sure it is finished; this is the "commit" part of 
the probe.

>  If another thread jumps in after the lock is released and
> detects probe_count > 0 while the probe hasn't happened the quirk will
> fail. So we need to make sure that amd_chipset.probe_count does not
> become > 0 before the probe is finished.

I meant the increment should be done before the "if" statement but
after the spin_lock_irqsave().  That way nobody else can jump in at the
wrong time.

> > > +		ret = amd_chipset.probe_result;
> > > +
> > > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&amd_lock, flags);
> > > +
> > > +		if (info.nb_dev)
> > > +			pci_dev_put(info.nb_dev);
> > > +		if (info.smbus_dev)
> > > +			pci_dev_put(info.smbus_dev);
> > > +
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		/* no race - commit the result */
> > > +		info.probe_count++;
> > 
> > This isn't right, because info.probe_count was initialized to 0.  Maybe 
> > amd_chipset.probe_count should be made into a separate variable, not a 
> > part of the structure, like amd_lock.
> 
> The purpose of the struct is structuring of data. In theory all of its
> members could be turned into global variables. The amd_lock is different
> because it does not only protect the struct but also access to the
> hardware while the quirk is applied/unapplied.

Do it however you prefer.  But as it stands now, the patch is wrong.

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/