| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E8802435AFE@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:21:18 +0000
From: "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
"Zhao, Yakui" <yakui.zhao@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 07/13] ACPI/IPMI: Add reference counting for ACPI IPMI
transfers
> From: linux-acpi-owner@...r.kernel.org
> [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Wysocki
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 6:23 AM
>
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 04:09:54 PM Lv Zheng wrote:
> > This patch adds reference counting for ACPI IPMI transfers to tune the
> > locking granularity of tx_msg_lock.
> >
> > The acpi_ipmi_msg handling is re-designed using referece counting.
> > 1. tx_msg is always unlinked before complete(), so that:
> > 1.1. it is safe to put complete() out side of tx_msg_lock;
> > 1.2. complete() can only happen once, thus smp_wmb() is not required.
> > 2. Increasing the reference of tx_msg before calling
> > ipmi_request_settime() and introducing tx_msg_lock protected
> > ipmi_cancel_tx_msg() so that a complete() can happen in parellel with
> > tx_msg unlinking in the failure cases.
> > 3. tx_msg holds the reference of acpi_ipmi_device so that it can be flushed
> > and freed in the contexts other than acpi_ipmi_space_handler().
> >
> > The lockdep_chains shows all acpi_ipmi locks are leaf locks after the
> > tuning:
> > 1. ipmi_lock is always leaf:
> > irq_context: 0
> > [ffffffff81a943f8] smi_watchers_mutex
> > [ffffffffa06eca60] driver_data.ipmi_lock
> > irq_context: 0
> > [ffffffff82767b40] &buffer->mutex
> > [ffffffffa00a6678] s_active#103
> > [ffffffffa06eca60] driver_data.ipmi_lock
> > 2. without this patch applied, lock used by complete() is held after
> > holding tx_msg_lock:
> > irq_context: 0
> > [ffffffff82767b40] &buffer->mutex
> > [ffffffffa00a6678] s_active#103
> > [ffffffffa06ecce8] &(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock)->rlock
> > irq_context: 1
> > [ffffffffa06ecce8] &(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock)->rlock
> > irq_context: 1
> > [ffffffffa06ecce8] &(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock)->rlock
> > [ffffffffa06eccf0] &x->wait#25
> > irq_context: 1
> > [ffffffffa06ecce8] &(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock)->rlock
> > [ffffffffa06eccf0] &x->wait#25
> > [ffffffff81e36620] &p->pi_lock
> > irq_context: 1
> > [ffffffffa06ecce8] &(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock)->rlock
> > [ffffffffa06eccf0] &x->wait#25
> > [ffffffff81e36620] &p->pi_lock
> > [ffffffff81e5d0a8] &rq->lock
> > 3. with this patch applied, tx_msg_lock is always leaf:
> > irq_context: 0
> > [ffffffff82767b40] &buffer->mutex
> > [ffffffffa00a66d8] s_active#107
> > [ffffffffa07ecdc8] &(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock)->rlock
> > irq_context: 1
> > [ffffffffa07ecdc8] &(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock)->rlock
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>
> > Cc: Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c | 107
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c
> > index 2a09156..0ee1ea6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c
> > @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ struct acpi_ipmi_msg {
> > u8 data[ACPI_IPMI_MAX_MSG_LENGTH];
> > u8 rx_len;
> > struct acpi_ipmi_device *device;
> > + atomic_t refcnt;
>
> Again: kref, please?
Please see the concerns in another email.
>
> > };
> >
> > /* IPMI request/response buffer per ACPI 4.0, sec 5.5.2.4.3.2 */
> > @@ -195,22 +196,47 @@ static struct acpi_ipmi_device
> *acpi_ipmi_get_selected_smi(void)
> > return ipmi_device;
> > }
> >
> > -static struct acpi_ipmi_msg *acpi_alloc_ipmi_msg(struct acpi_ipmi_device
> *ipmi)
> > +static struct acpi_ipmi_msg *ipmi_msg_alloc(void)
> > {
> > + struct acpi_ipmi_device *ipmi;
> > struct acpi_ipmi_msg *ipmi_msg;
> > - struct pnp_dev *pnp_dev = ipmi->pnp_dev;
> >
> > + ipmi = acpi_ipmi_get_selected_smi();
> > + if (!ipmi)
> > + return NULL;
> > ipmi_msg = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_ipmi_msg), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!ipmi_msg) {
> > - dev_warn(&pnp_dev->dev, "Can't allocate memory for ipmi_msg\n");
> > + if (!ipmi_msg) {
> > + acpi_ipmi_dev_put(ipmi);
> > return NULL;
> > }
> > + atomic_set(&ipmi_msg->refcnt, 1);
> > init_completion(&ipmi_msg->tx_complete);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ipmi_msg->head);
> > ipmi_msg->device = ipmi;
> > +
> > return ipmi_msg;
> > }
> >
> > +static struct acpi_ipmi_msg *
> > +acpi_ipmi_msg_get(struct acpi_ipmi_msg *tx_msg)
> > +{
> > + if (tx_msg)
> > + atomic_inc(&tx_msg->refcnt);
> > + return tx_msg;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ipmi_msg_release(struct acpi_ipmi_msg *tx_msg)
> > +{
> > + acpi_ipmi_dev_put(tx_msg->device);
> > + kfree(tx_msg);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void acpi_ipmi_msg_put(struct acpi_ipmi_msg *tx_msg)
> > +{
> > + if (tx_msg && atomic_dec_and_test(&tx_msg->refcnt))
> > + ipmi_msg_release(tx_msg);
> > +}
> > +
> > #define IPMI_OP_RGN_NETFN(offset) ((offset >> 8) & 0xff)
> > #define IPMI_OP_RGN_CMD(offset) (offset & 0xff)
> > static int acpi_format_ipmi_request(struct acpi_ipmi_msg *tx_msg,
> > @@ -300,7 +326,7 @@ static void acpi_format_ipmi_response(struct
> acpi_ipmi_msg *msg,
> >
> > static void ipmi_flush_tx_msg(struct acpi_ipmi_device *ipmi)
> > {
> > - struct acpi_ipmi_msg *tx_msg, *temp;
> > + struct acpi_ipmi_msg *tx_msg;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -311,16 +337,46 @@ static void ipmi_flush_tx_msg(struct
> acpi_ipmi_device *ipmi)
> > */
> > while (atomic_read(&ipmi->refcnt) > 1) {
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&ipmi->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > - list_for_each_entry_safe(tx_msg, temp,
> > - &ipmi->tx_msg_list, head) {
> > + while (!list_empty(&ipmi->tx_msg_list)) {
> > + tx_msg = list_first_entry(&ipmi->tx_msg_list,
> > + struct acpi_ipmi_msg,
> > + head);
> > + list_del(&tx_msg->head);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ipmi->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > +
> > /* wake up the sleep thread on the Tx msg */
> > complete(&tx_msg->tx_complete);
> > + acpi_ipmi_msg_put(tx_msg);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ipmi->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > }
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ipmi->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > +
> > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(msecs_to_jiffies(1));
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static void ipmi_cancel_tx_msg(struct acpi_ipmi_device *ipmi,
> > + struct acpi_ipmi_msg *msg)
> > +{
> > + struct acpi_ipmi_msg *tx_msg;
> > + int msg_found = 0;
>
> Use bool?
OK.
There are other int flags in the original codes, do I need to do a cleanup for all of them (dev_found)?
>
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ipmi->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > + list_for_each_entry(tx_msg, &ipmi->tx_msg_list, head) {
> > + if (msg == tx_msg) {
> > + msg_found = 1;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + if (msg_found)
> > + list_del(&tx_msg->head);
>
> The list_del() can be done when you set msg_found.
Please see my concerns in another email.
Thanks and best regards
-Lv
>
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ipmi->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + if (msg_found)
> > + acpi_ipmi_msg_put(tx_msg);
> > +}
> > +
> > static void ipmi_msg_handler(struct ipmi_recv_msg *msg, void
> *user_msg_data)
> > {
> > struct acpi_ipmi_device *ipmi_device = user_msg_data;
> > @@ -343,12 +399,15 @@ static void ipmi_msg_handler(struct
> ipmi_recv_msg *msg, void *user_msg_data)
> > break;
> > }
> > }
> > + if (msg_found)
> > + list_del(&tx_msg->head);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> >
> > if (!msg_found) {
> > dev_warn(&pnp_dev->dev,
> > "Unexpected response (msg id %ld) is returned.\n",
> > msg->msgid);
> > - goto out_lock;
> > + goto out_msg;
> > }
> >
> > /* copy the response data to Rx_data buffer */
> > @@ -360,14 +419,11 @@ static void ipmi_msg_handler(struct
> ipmi_recv_msg *msg, void *user_msg_data)
> > }
> > tx_msg->rx_len = msg->msg.data_len;
> > memcpy(tx_msg->data, msg->msg.data, tx_msg->rx_len);
> > - /* tx_msg content must be valid before setting msg_done flag */
> > - smp_wmb();
> > tx_msg->msg_done = 1;
> >
> > out_comp:
> > complete(&tx_msg->tx_complete);
> > -out_lock:
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > + acpi_ipmi_msg_put(tx_msg);
> > out_msg:
> > ipmi_free_recv_msg(msg);
> > }
> > @@ -493,21 +549,17 @@ acpi_ipmi_space_handler(u32 function,
> acpi_physical_address address,
> > if ((function & ACPI_IO_MASK) == ACPI_READ)
> > return AE_TYPE;
> >
> > - ipmi_device = acpi_ipmi_get_selected_smi();
> > - if (!ipmi_device)
> > + tx_msg = ipmi_msg_alloc();
> > + if (!tx_msg)
> > return AE_NOT_EXIST;
> > -
> > - tx_msg = acpi_alloc_ipmi_msg(ipmi_device);
> > - if (!tx_msg) {
> > - status = AE_NO_MEMORY;
> > - goto out_ref;
> > - }
> > + ipmi_device = tx_msg->device;
> >
> > if (acpi_format_ipmi_request(tx_msg, address, value) != 0) {
> > - status = AE_TYPE;
> > - goto out_msg;
> > + ipmi_msg_release(tx_msg);
> > + return AE_TYPE;
> > }
> >
> > + acpi_ipmi_msg_get(tx_msg);
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > list_add_tail(&tx_msg->head, &ipmi_device->tx_msg_list);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > @@ -518,21 +570,16 @@ acpi_ipmi_space_handler(u32 function,
> acpi_physical_address address,
> > NULL, 0, 0, 0);
> > if (err) {
> > status = AE_ERROR;
> > - goto out_list;
> > + goto out_msg;
> > }
> > rem_time = wait_for_completion_timeout(&tx_msg->tx_complete,
> > IPMI_TIMEOUT);
> > acpi_format_ipmi_response(tx_msg, value, rem_time);
> > status = AE_OK;
> >
> > -out_list:
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > - list_del(&tx_msg->head);
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock, flags);
> > out_msg:
> > - kfree(tx_msg);
> > -out_ref:
> > - acpi_ipmi_dev_put(ipmi_device);
> > + ipmi_cancel_tx_msg(ipmi_device, tx_msg);
> > + acpi_ipmi_msg_put(tx_msg);
> > return status;
> > }
> >
> >
> --
> I speak only for myself.
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists