linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scsi: pm: Balance pm_only counter of request queue during system resume

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ef23a815-118a-52fe-4880-19e7fc4fcd10@acm.org>
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:32:55 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
        hongwus@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
        stanley.chu@...iatek.com, alim.akhtar@...sung.com,
        beanhuo@...ron.com, Avri.Altman@....com,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] scsi: pm: Balance pm_only counter of request queue
 during system resume

On 2020-04-29 22:40, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2020-04-30 13:08, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 2020-04-29 21:10, Can Guo wrote:
>>> During system resume, scsi_resume_device() decreases a request queue's
>>> pm_only counter if the scsi device was quiesced before. But after that,
>>> if the scsi device's RPM status is RPM_SUSPENDED, the pm_only counter is
>>> still held (non-zero). Current scsi resume hook only sets the RPM status
>>> of the scsi device and its request queue to RPM_ACTIVE, but leaves the
>>> pm_only counter unchanged. This may make the request queue's pm_only
>>> counter remain non-zero after resume hook returns, hence those who are
>>> waiting on the mq_freeze_wq would never be woken up. Fix this by calling
>>> blk_post_runtime_resume() if pm_only is non-zero to balance the pm_only
>>> counter which is held by the scsi device's RPM ops.
>>
>> How was this issue discovered? How has this patch been tested?
> 
> As the issue was found after system resumes, so the issue was discovered
> during system suspend/resume test, and it is very easy to be replicated.
> After system resumes, if this issue hits some scsi devices, all bios sent
> to their request queues are blocked, which may cause a system hang if the
> scsi devices are vital to system functionality.
> 
> To make sure the patch work well, we have tested system suspend/resume
> and made sure no system hang happen due to request queues got blocked
> by imbalanced pm_only counter.

Thanks, that's very interesting information. My concern with this patch
is that the power management code is not the only caller of
blk_set_pm_only() / blk_clear_pm_only(). E.g. the SCSI SPI code also
calls scsi_device_quiesce() and scsi_device_resume(). These last
functions call blk_set_pm_only() and blk_clear_pm_only(). More calls of
scsi_device_quiesce() and scsi_device_resume() might be added in the future.

Has it been considered to test directly whether a SCSI device has been
runtime suspended instead of relying on blk_queue_pm_only()? How about
using pm_runtime_status_suspended() or adding a function in
block/blk-pm.h that checks whether q->rpm_status == RPM_SUSPENDED?

Thanks,

Bart.