linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] PM / Runtime: introduce pm_runtime_set[get]_memalloc

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CACVXFVO5-UPNrWsySzDE5AfOv1TMqbyitQX9ViidSJPM36fqAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:00:56 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] PM / Runtime: introduce pm_runtime_set[get]_memalloc_noio()

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:

>
> Okay, I see your point.  But acquiring the lock here doesn't solve the
> problem.  Suppose a thread is about to reset a USB mass-storage device.
> It acquires the lock and sees that the noio flag is clear.  But before
> it can issue the reset, another thread sets the noio flag.

If the USB mass-storage device is being reseted, the flag should be set
already generally.  If the flag is still unset, that means the disk/network
device isn't added into system(or removed just now), so memory allocation
with block I/O should be allowed during the reset. Looks it isn't one problem,
isn't it?

> I'm not sure what the best solution is.
>
>> The lock needn't to be held when the function is called inside
>> pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(),  so the bitfield flag should
>> be checked directly without holding power lock in dev_memalloc_noio().
>
> Yes.
>
> A couple of other things...  Runtime resume can be blocked by runtime
> suspend, if a resume is requested while the suspend is in progress.
> Therefore the runtime suspend code also needs to save-set-restore the
> noio flag.

Looks the simplest approach is to handle the noio flag thing at the start and
end of rpm_resume.

> Also, we should set the noio flag at the start of
> usb_stor_control_thread, because everything that thread does can
> potentially block an I/O operation.

Yes, it should be done, and all GFP_NOIO in usbcore should be converted
into GFP_KERNEL together. And the work shouldn't be started until
the patchset is merged.

> Lastly, pm_runtime_get_memalloc_noio always returns false when
> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is disabled.  But we still need to prevent I/O during
> usb_reset_device even when there's no runtime PM.  Maybe the simplest
> answer is always to set noio during resets.  That would also help with
> the race described above.

I have thought about this. IMO, pm_runtime_get_memalloc_noio should
return true always if CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is unset.

Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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/