linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi: indicate to platform when hot remove returns busy

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: <CAHp75VcmMcxVT3LZNU2Vr2qNGigkNUoa3BFJmyE+WSvPG6QCwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:50:13 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] acpi: indicate to platform when hot remove returns busy

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Lee, Chun-Yi <joeyli.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> In hotplug logic, it always indicates non-specific failure to
> platform through _OST when handing acpi hot-remove event failed. Then
> platform terminates the hot-remove process but it can not identify
> the reason.
>
> Base on current hot-remove code, there have two situations that it
> returns busy:
>  - OSPM try to offline an individual device, but the device offline
>    function returns busy.
>  - When the ejection event is applied to an "not offlined yet" container.
>    OSPM send kobject change event to userspace and returns busy.
>
> Both of them will returns -EBUSY to acpi device hotplug function then
> hotplug function indicates non-specific failure to platform just like
> any other error, e.g. -ENODEV or -EIO.
>
> The benefit to platform for identifying the OS busy state is that
> platform can be applied different approach to handle the busy but
> not just terminate the hot-remove process by unknow reason. For
> example, platform can wait for a while then triggers hot-remove
> again.
>
> This RFC patch adds one more parameter to the handler function of
> acpi generic hotplug event to give the function a chance to propose
> the return code of _OST. In this case, it sets ost return code to
> ACPI_OST_SC_DEVICE_BUSY when the acpi hot remove function returns
> -EBUSY.

> -static int acpi_generic_hotplug_event(struct acpi_device *adev, u32 type)
> +static int acpi_generic_hotplug_event(struct acpi_device *adev, u32 type,
> +                                     u32 *ost_code)
>  {
> +       int error = -EINVAL;
> +
>         switch (type) {
>         case ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK:
>                 return acpi_scan_bus_check(adev);
> @@ -389,9 +392,11 @@ static int acpi_generic_hotplug_event(struct acpi_device *adev, u32 type)
>                 }
>                 acpi_evaluate_ost(adev->handle, ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST,
>                                   ACPI_OST_SC_EJECT_IN_PROGRESS, NULL);
> -               return acpi_scan_hot_remove(adev);
> +               error = acpi_scan_hot_remove(adev);
> +               if (error == -EBUSY && ost_code)
> +                       *ost_code = ACPI_OST_SC_DEVICE_BUSY;
>         }
> -       return -EINVAL;
> +       return error;
>  }
>
>  void acpi_device_hotplug(struct acpi_device *adev, u32 src)
> @@ -413,7 +418,7 @@ void acpi_device_hotplug(struct acpi_device *adev, u32 src)
>         if (adev->flags.is_dock_station) {
>                 error = dock_notify(adev, src);
>         } else if (adev->flags.hotplug_notify) {
> -               error = acpi_generic_hotplug_event(adev, src);
> +               error = acpi_generic_hotplug_event(adev, src, &ost_code);
>                 if (error == -EPERM) {
>                         ost_code = ACPI_OST_SC_EJECT_NOT_SUPPORTED;

Looking again to the code I still think you may easily do all stuff
here in shorter and cleaner manner.
Do we anticipate that there will be more callers that would like to
get ost_code for one specific type of event?
Above intrusion to the acpi_generic_hotplug_event() looks to me like
non-generic hack.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko