[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170526194640.GS8951@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 21:46:40 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: "Fuzzey, Martin" <mfuzzey@...keon.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
jewalt@...innovations.com, rafal@...ecki.pl,
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Li, Yi" <yi1.li@...ux.intel.com>, atull@...nsource.altera.com,
Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Hans de G oede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] firmware: fix sending -ERESTARTSYS due to signal on
fallback
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 06:09:29AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "Fuzzey, Martin" <mfuzzey@...keon.com> writes:
> >>>> Maybe SIGCHLD shouldn't interrupt firmware loading?
> >
> > I don't think there's a way of doing that without disabling all
> > signals (ie using the non interruptible wait variants).
> > It used to be that way (which is why I only ran into this after
> > updating from an ancient 3.16 kernel to a slightly less ancient 4.4)
> > But there are valid reasons for wanting to be able to interrupt
> > firmware loading (like being able to kill the userspace helper)
>
> Perhaps simply using a killable wait and not a fully interruptible
> wait would be better?
What do you mean by a killable wait BTW?
ret = swait_event_interruptible_timeout() is being used right now.
The problem is we have:
if (ret != 0 && fw_st->status == FW_STATUS_ABORTED)
return -ENOENT;
if (!ret)
return -ETIMEDOUT;
return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
The (!ret) return -ETIMEDOUT ensures that if there was no time left
then we know we ran out of time.
The ret < 0 ? ret makes sure we send any errors
swait_event_interruptible_timeout() sent.
But the caller of this code has:
if (fw_state_is_aborted(&buf->fw_st))
retval = -EAGAIN;
else if (buf->is_paged_buf && !buf->data)
retval = -ENOMEM;
And this retval is used. so we mask all errors with -EAGAIN.
So Martin is asking us to let us send -ERESTARTSYS back down to drivers.
These potentially could send back down to probe, and so finit_module()
could get this.
Another use case is a custom syfs knob which triggers a request_firmware(),
in such case this is a simple write(), but Anroid is configured to retry
if -ERESTARTSYS so I gather it will *retry* writing again to this file
if -ERESTARTSYS was sent and therefore triggering another firmware request.
> It sounds like the code really is not prepared for an truly
> interruptible wait here.
Can you clarify what you mean?
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists