linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] acpi_memhotplug: Allow eject to proceed on rebind scenario

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: <1354118473.26955.208.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:01:13 -0700
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Vasilis Liaskovitis <vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com>,
	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
	Wen Congyang <wencongyang@...il.com>,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, lenb@...nel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] acpi_memhotplug: Allow eject to proceed on
 rebind scenario

On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 00:41 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 03:03:47 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 19:32 +0100, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:19:01PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > > >> Consider the following sequence of operations for a hotplugged memory
> > > > > >> device:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1. echo "PNP0C80:XX" > /sys/bus/acpi/drivers/acpi_memhotplug/unbind
> > > > > >> 2. echo 1 >/sys/bus/pci/devices/PNP0C80:XX/eject
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If we don't offline/remove the memory, we have no chance to do it in
> > > > > >> step 2. After
> > > > > >> step2, the memory is used by the kernel, but we have powered off it. It
> > > > > >> is very
> > > > > >> dangerous.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How does power-off happen after unbind? acpi_eject_store checks for existing
> > > > > > driver before taking any action:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > #ifndef FORCE_EJECT
> > > > > > 	if (acpi_device->driver == NULL) {
> > > > > > 		ret = -ENODEV;
> > > > > > 		goto err;
> > > > > > 	}
> > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FORCE_EJECT is not defined afaict, so the function returns without scheduling
> > > > > > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device. Is there another code path that calls power-off?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Consider the following case:
> > > > > 
> > > > > We hotremove the memory device by SCI and unbind it from the driver at the same time:
> > > > > 
> > > > > CPUa                                                  CPUb
> > > > > acpi_memory_device_notify()
> > > > >                                        unbind it from the driver
> > > > >     acpi_bus_hot_remove_device()
> > > > 
> > > > Can we make acpi_bus_remove() to fail if a given acpi_device is not
> > > > bound with a driver?  If so, can we make the unbind operation to perform
> > > > unbind only?
> > > 
> > > acpi_bus_remove_device could check if the driver is present, and return -ENODEV
> > > if it's not present (dev->driver == NULL).
> > > 
> > > But there can still be a race between an eject and an unbind operation happening
> > > simultaneously. This seems like a general problem to me i.e. not specific to an
> > > acpi memory device. How do we ensure an eject does not race with a driver unbind
> > > for other acpi devices?
> > > 
> > > Is there a per-device lock in acpi-core or device-core that can prevent this from
> > > happening? Driver core does a device_lock(dev) on all operations, but this is
> > > probably not grabbed on SCI-initiated acpi ejects.
> > 
> > Since driver_unbind() calls device_lock(dev->parent) before calling
> > device_release_driver(), I am wondering if we can call
> > device_lock(dev->dev->parent) at the beginning of acpi_bus_remove()
> > (i.e. before calling pre_remove) and fails if dev->driver is NULL.  The
> > parent lock is otherwise released after device_release_driver() is done.
> 
> I would be careful.  You may introduce some subtle locking-related issues
> this way.

Right.  This requires careful inspection and testing.  As far as the
locking is concerned, I am not keen on using fine grained locking for
hot-plug.  It is much simpler and solid if we serialize such operations.

> Besides, there may be an alternative approach to all this.  For example,
> what if we don't remove struct device objects on eject?  The ACPI handles
> associated with them don't go away in that case after all, do they?

Umm...  Sorry, I am not getting your point.  The issue is that we need
to be able to fail a request when memory range cannot be off-lined.
Otherwise, we end up ejecting online memory range.

Thanks,
-Toshi

--
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/