linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM-runtime: Take suppliers into account in __pm_runtime_set

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: <CAPDyKFrtVHNA0-zAbUYR9k_qWKQUS2f+1Z=VLhvfQ=EDcBkPKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:03:23 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
        Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM-runtime: Take suppliers into account in __pm_runtime_set_status()

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 00:05, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:51 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:27, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 19:46, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > >
> > > > If the target device has any suppliers, as reflected by device links
> > > > to them, __pm_runtime_set_status() does not take them into account,
> > > > which is not consistent with the other parts of the PM-runtime
> > > > framework and may lead to programming mistakes.
> > > >
> > > > Modify __pm_runtime_set_status() to take suppliers into account by
> > > > activating them upfront if the new status is RPM_ACTIVE and
> > > > deactivating them on exit if the new status is RPM_SUSPENDED.
> > > >
> > > > If the activation of one of the suppliers fails, the new status
> > > > will be RPM_SUSPENDED and the (remaining) suppliers will be
> > > > deactivated on exit (the child count of the device's parent
> > > > will be dropped too then).
> > > >
> > > > Of course, adding device links locking to __pm_runtime_set_status()
> > > > means that it cannot be run fron interrupt context, so make it use
> > > > spin_lock_irq() and spin_unlock_irq() instead of spin_lock_irqsave()
> > > > and spin_unlock_irqrestore(), respectively.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > >
> > > Rafael, thanks for working on this!
> > >
> > > I am running some tests at my side, but still not achieving the
> > > behavior I expect to. Will let you know when I have more details, but
> > > first some comments below.
> >
> > Alright, this is what I found.
> >
> > When I call pm_runtime_set_suspended(), in the ->probe() error path of
> > my RPM test driver (I am removing the device link afterwards), then my
> > expectation was that this should allow the supplier to become runtime
> > suspended (sooner or later). This isn't the case, as it turns out the
> > runtime PM usage count of the supplier, still remains 1 after the
> > probe failure.
> >
> > My observation is that with $subject patch, the link->rpm_active count
> > is now reaching 1, before it stayed at 2 - so one step forward. :-)
> >
> > However, the reason to why the runtime PM usage count never reaches 0,
> > is because of the call to pm_runtime_get_noresume(supplier) in
> > device_link_rpm_prepare(), which is called from device_link_add().
>
> That was there previously, I've just moved it to device_link_rpm_prepare().

Correct. The problem been there before. Even without using  DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE.

>
> But good catch!
>
> > To solve the problem, it seems like we need to call
> > pm_runtime_put(supplier), in case the device link is deleted while the
> > consumer is still probing.
>
> I'd rather change the way pm_runtime_get/put_suppliers() work, so that
> they use the rpm_active refcount, but pm_runtime_put_suppliers() only
> drops it by one - unless it is one already.

That seems like a very reasonable approach!

The mix between calling pm_runtime_get/put*() on the supplier device
directly vs using the path with the rpm_active count, is to me rather
confusing. Using only the latter, would be a nice cleanup anyway, I
think.

>
> Then, when adding a new link with DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE,
> device_link_add() only needs to increment its rpm_active *twice*
> (instead of doing that once as to does now), so it will stay above one
> after the subsequent pm_runtime_put_suppliers() - and if it goes away
> in the meantime, then it will be cleaned up by the removal.

Assuming you will add a check for "consumer->links.status ==
DL_DEV_PROBING" to understand if rpm_active should by be decreased.

Yes, it seems reasonable.

>
> In turn, if a link is created without DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE, its
> rpm_active is one and then pm_runtime_put_suppliers() will just skip
> it.
>
> A patch will follow. :-)

Great, I am here to review it. :-)

Kind regards
Uffe