linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 54/55] Input: atmel_mxt_ts: Implement synchronization during various operation

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: <7f5435d1-27b0-c337-224c-c78acd989d9e@mentor.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Apr 2020 13:07:33 +0900
From:   "Wang, Jiada" <jiada_wang@...tor.com>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>, <nick@...anahar.org>,
        <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, <jikos@...nel.org>,
        <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>, <bsz@...ihalf.com>
CC:     <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <erosca@...adit-jv.com>, <Andrew_Gabbasov@...tor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 54/55] Input: atmel_mxt_ts: Implement synchronization
 during various operation

Hi Dmitrij

On 2020/04/02 22:44, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 02.04.2020 16:24, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>> 02.04.2020 14:50, Wang, Jiada пишет:
>>> Hi Dmitry
>>>
>>> On 2020/04/02 1:04, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 31.03.2020 13:50, Jiada Wang пишет:
>>>>> From: Sanjeev Chugh <sanjeev_chugh@...tor.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> There could be scope of race conditions when sysfs is being handled
>>>>> and at the same time, device removal is occurring. For example,
>>>>> we don't want the device removal to begin if the Atmel device
>>>>> cfg update is going on or firmware update is going on. In such
>>>>> cases, wait for device update to be completed before the removal
>>>>> continues.
>>>>>
>>>>>       Thread                                          Thread 2:
>>>>> =========================
>>>>> =========================
>>>>> mxt_update_fw_store()                           mxt_remove()
>>>>> mutex_lock(&data->lock)                         ...
>>>>> mxt_initialize()                                //Tries to acquire lock
>>>>>     request_firmware_nowait()                     mutex_lock(&data->lock)
>>>>> ...                                             ==>waits for lock()
>>>>> ...                                             .
>>>>> ...                                             .
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&data->lock)                       .
>>>>>                                                   //Gets lock and
>>>>> proceeds
>>>>>                                                  
>>>>> mxt_free_input_device();
>>>>>                                                   ...
>>>>>                                                  
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&data->lock)
>>>>>                                                   //Frees atmel driver
>>>>> data
>>>>>                                                   kfree(data)
>>>>>
>>>>> If the request_firmware_nowait() completes after the driver removal,
>>>>> and callback is triggered. But kernel crashes since the module is
>>>>> already removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This commit adds state machine to serialize such scenarios.
>>>>
>>>> Won't it be easier to bump driver's module use-count by __module_get()
>>>> while firmware is updating? Or remove sysfs during of mxt_remove()? >
>>>
>>> thanks for your inspiration, I will replace state machine with module
>>> use-count.
>>
>> I'm actually now thinking that the suggestion about the module-count
>> wasn't very correct because this won't really help in regards to
>> mxt_update_fw_store() / mxt_remove() racing.
>>
>> I see that mxt_remove() already invokes the mxt_sysfs_remove(), which
>> should block until mxt_update_fw_store() is completed, shouldn't it?
>>
>> I guess the kfree(data) isn't the real cause of the problem and
>> something like this should help:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/atmel_mxt_ts.c
>> b/drivers/input/touchscreen/atmel_mxt_ts.c
>> index b2edf51e1595..4e66106feeb9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/atmel_mxt_ts.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/atmel_mxt_ts.c
>> @@ -4254,6 +4254,7 @@ static void mxt_sysfs_remove(struct mxt_data *data)
>>   	struct i2c_client *client = data->client;
>>
>>   	sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &mxt_attr_group);
>> +	sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &mxt_fw_attr_group);
>>   }
>>
>>   static void mxt_reset_slots(struct mxt_data *data)
>> @@ -4649,31 +4650,19 @@ static int mxt_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
>>   {
>>   	struct mxt_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>>
>> -	mutex_lock(&data->lock);
>> -	if (data->e_state == MXT_STATE_UPDATING_CONFIG_ASYNC ||
>> -	    data->e_state == MXT_STATE_UPDATING_CONFIG) {
>> -		data->e_state = MXT_STATE_GOING_AWAY;
>> -		mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> -		mxt_wait_for_completion(data, &data->update_cfg_completion,
>> -					MXT_CONFIG_TIMEOUT);
>> -	} else {
>> -		data->e_state = MXT_STATE_GOING_AWAY;
>> -		mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
>> -	}
>> +	mxt_sysfs_remove(data);
>>
>> -	disable_irq(data->irq);
>> -	sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &mxt_fw_attr_group);
>>   	if (data->reset_gpio) {
>>   		sysfs_remove_link(&client->dev.kobj, "reset");
>>   		gpiod_unexport(data->reset_gpio);
>>   	}
>> +
>>   	mxt_debug_msg_remove(data);
>> -	mxt_sysfs_remove(data);
>>   	mxt_free_input_device(data);
>>   	mxt_free_object_table(data);
>>
>> 	if (debug_state)
>> 		cancel_delayed_work_sync(&data->watchdog_work);
>> +	disable_irq(data->irq);
>>
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>>
> 
> I'm also wondering why dev_attr_update_fw needs a separate
> attribute_group, couldn't it be moved into mxt_attrs[]
Separate sysfs into different groups are done by commit
"Input: atmel_mxt_ts - rework sysfs init/remove"
I think the main purpose,
is to remove other sysfs entries when firmware is being updated.

Thanks,
Jiada