linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over ->reset

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]

Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2017 20:29:36 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, rakesh@...era.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] PCI: ensure the PCI device is locked over
        ->reset_notify calls

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:14:43PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> So I guess the method here is
> dev->driver->err_handler->reset_notify(), and the PCI core should be
> holding device_lock() while calling it?  That makes sense to me;
> thanks a lot for articulating that!

Yes.

> 1) The current patch protects the err_handler->reset_notify() uses by
> adding or expanding device_lock regions in the paths that lead to
> pci_reset_notify().  Could we simplify it by doing the locking
> directly in pci_reset_notify()?  Then it would be easy to verify the
> locking, and we would be less likely to add new callers without the
> proper locking.

We could do that, except that I'd rather hold the lock over a longer
period if we have many calls following each other.  I also have
a patch to actually kill pci_reset_notify() later in the series as
well, as the calling convention for it and ->reset_notify() are
awkward - depending on prepare parameter they do two entirely
different things.  That being said I could also add new
pci_reset_prepare() and pci_reset_done() helpers.

> 2) Stating the rule explicitly helps look for other problems, and I
> think we have a similar problem in all the pcie_portdrv_err_handler
> methods.

Yes, I mentioned this earlier, and I also vaguely remember we got
bug reports from IBM on power for this a while ago.  I just don't
feel confident enough to touch all these without a good test plan.