linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-dev: Don't block the adapter from unregistering

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: <20160726094139.6ad9189b@endymion>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jul 2016 09:41:39 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
	Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c-dev: Don't block the adapter from unregistering

Hi Viresh,

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:31:40 -0700, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-07-16, 11:39, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > The problem is that the patch proposed by Viresh has nothing to do with
> > this. It's not adding notifications, just changing the time frame during
> > which user-space holds a reference to the i2c (bus) device. The goal as
> > I understand it is to allow *prepared* hot-unplug (in the form of
> > "rmmod i2c-bus-device-driver" or sysfs-based offlining?) while
> 
> Not really. We are concerned about both prepared and Unprepared cases.
> 
> This *hacky* patch was useful in case of *unprepared* hot-unplug as well.
> 
> Here is the sequence of events:
> - open() i2c device from userspace
> - do some operations on the device read/write/ioctls() ..
> - Module hot-unplugged (*unprepared*)
> - Some of the ongoing i2c transactions may just fail, that is fine ..
> - Kernel detected the interrupt about module removal and tries to
>   cleanup the devices..
> - Now, kernel can not remove the i2c device, unless user application
>   has closed the file descriptor.

Well, what is the application doing at that point? What error codes is
it getting? Should it not close the device node and bail out?

> And so kernel is waiting in the driver's ->remove() callback forever.
> 
> Also, there is no way to co-ordinate (in Android) with the
> Applications using the device.

Why? Looks like a serious limitation.

At this point I still don't know what application we are talking about,
why it has to be in user-space when I2C device drivers are supposed to
be on the kernel side, nor why they have to keep the i2c device node
opened all the time.

Why do you insist on relying on i2c-dev when it is so clearly no
compatible with your requirements?

> They can crash or fail out if they
> want to, but the kernel shouldn't stop removal of a hardware module in
> that case.

If they crash or bail out, that would close the device, so no problem.
The problem would be if they stay alive and misbehave.

If the kernel should be completely independent from what user-space is
doing, this is simply not compatible with reference counting. The whole
point of counting references is to know when a device is still in use,
and prevent it from being removed while this is the case. If you say
that devices can be removed at any time and this is OK, then you should
not be counting references at all, this is pointless. But I doubt the
i2c code is currently ready for this.

> > user-space processes have i2c device nodes open. Unprepared hot-unplug
> > will still go wrong exactly as it goes now.
> 
> > My point is that prepared hot-unplug can already be achieved today
> > without any patch.
> 
> Yeah, if we have the option of stopping the applications before the
> device is gone.
> 
> > Or possibly improved by adding a notification
> > mechanism. But not by changing the reference holding design.
> > 
> > Not only the proposed patch does not help and degrades the performance,
> > but it breaks assumptions. For example, it would allow an application
> > to open an i2c bus, then you remove its driver and load another i2c bus
> > driver, which gets the same bus number, and now the application writes
> > to a completely different I2C bus segment. The current reference model
> > prevents that, on purpose.
> > 
> > So, again, nack from me.
> 
> Yeah, the patch wasn't great and I knew it from the beginning. But we
> are looking for a solution that can be accepted and so need advice
> from you guys :)

I have no idea, sorry. Hopefully Greg or Wolfram know more? Check what
other subsystems are doing? 

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support