linux-kernel - Re: [BUGFIX v2 2/4] ACPI, DOCK: resolve possible deadlock scenarios

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: <51C084D9.50008@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:03:37 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"Alexander E . Patrakov" <patrakov@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX v2 2/4] ACPI, DOCK: resolve possible deadlock scenarios

On 06/17/2013 07:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:12:00 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On 06/16/2013 06:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 11:20:40 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which sysfs interfaces do you mean, by the way?
>>>>
>>>> If you mean "eject", then it takes acpi_scan_lock and hotplug_dock_devices()
>>>> should always be run under acpi_scan_lock too.  It isn't at the moment,
>>>> because write_undock() doesn't take acpi_scan_lock(), but this is an obvious
>>>> bug (so I'm going to send a patch to fix it in a while).
>>>>
>>>> With that bug fixed, the possible race between acpi_eject_store() and
>>>> hotplug_dock_devices() should be prevented from happening, so perhaps we're
>>>> worrying about something that cannot happen?
>>>
>>> So here's a question: What particular races are possible if we remove
>>> ds->hp_lock entirely without doing anything else just yet?  I mean, how to
>>> *trigger* them from the start to the end and not how they can possibly happen
>>> but never do, because there's no way they can be actually triggered?
>> Hi Rafael,
>>     I have no really platform which triggers this bug, but I may imagine
>> a possible platform if it's valid for explanation.
>>     Let's think about a laptop dock station with a thunderbolt
>> controller built-in. The dock station is managed by dock driver and
>> acpiphp driver. And the PCIe hierarchy managed by the thunderbolt
>> controller may be managed by dock driver and ACPIPHP driver too.
>> So it may trigger the issue by pressing the dock button and unplugging
>> thunderbolt cable concurrently.
>>     But after all, this is all by imagination:). We may need to find a
>> simple and quick solution for 3.10 and the stable trees and enhance the
>> solution later to avoid introducing new bugs while fixing a bug.
> 
> Well, if that particular bug is not fixed in 3,10, it won't be a tragedy,
> and I *really* don't want that code to get substantially more complex than
> it is now.
Hi Rafael,
    I hope I could help to simplify the implementation too, but failed
until now:(. The PCI hotplug core has the same re-entrance issue too,
and I have struggled with that issue about one year now:(
    I have tried another solution by removing ds->hp_lock and
hotplug_devices list, please refer to the attachment. It could be used
to solve the deadlock issue in acpiphp, but may not be used to support
the coming fix for an ATA driver
regression(https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59871).
    The time window for 3.10 is closing, it would be great if we could
reach a quick solution here.
Regards!
Gerry

> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
> 


View attachment "0001-.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (9550 bytes)