linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] driver core: Fix suspend/resume order issue with deferred probe

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: <CAGETcx8AQPZ92vKKwq6-U8fbToCWtHvu4OT4hXzOGiCUst15fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 09:48:47 -0700
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] driver core: Fix suspend/resume order issue with
 deferred probe

Dropping Feng Kan <fkan@....com> and Toan Le <toanle@....com> because
their mails are bouncing.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 8:19 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:24 AM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Under the following conditions:
> > - driver A is built in and can probe device-A
> > - driver B is a module and can probe device-B
> > - device-A is supplier of device-B
> >
> > Without this patch:
> > 1. device-A is added.
> > 2. device-B is added.
> > 3. dpm_list is now [device-A, device-B].
> > 4. driver-A defers probe of device-A.
> > 5. deferred probe of device-A is reattempted
> > 6. device-A is moved to end of dpm_list.
> > 6. dpm_list is now [device-B, device-A].
> > 7. driver-B is loaded and probes device-B.
> > 8. dpm_list stays as [device-B, device-A].
> >
> > Suspend (which goes in the reverse order of dpm_list) fails because
> > device-A (supplier) is suspended before device-B (consumer).
> >
> > With this patch:
> > 1. device-A is added.
> > 2. device-B is added.
> > 3. dpm_list is now [device-A, device-B].
> > 4. driver-A defers probe of device-A.
> > 5. deferred probe of device-A is reattempted later.
> > 6. dpm_list is now [device-B, device-A].
> > 7. driver-B is loaded and probes device-B.
> > 8. dpm_list is now [device-A, device-B].
> >
> > Suspend works because device-B (consumer) is suspended before device-A
> > (supplier).
> >
> > Fixes: 494fd7b7ad10 ("PM / core: fix deferred probe breaking suspend resume order")
> > Fixes: 716a7a259690 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Add support for batching fwnode parsing")
> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/dd.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c
> > index 9a1d940342ac..52b2148c7983 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/dd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c
> > @@ -109,6 +109,8 @@ static void deferred_probe_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> >                  * probe makes that very unsafe.
> >                  */
> >                 device_pm_move_to_tail(dev);
> > +               /* Greg/Rafael: SHOULD I DELETE THIS? ^^ I think I should, but
> > +                * I'm worried if it'll have some unintended consequeneces. */
>
> Yes, this needs to go away if you make the other change.
>
> >
> >                 dev_dbg(dev, "Retrying from deferred list\n");
> >                 bus_probe_device(dev);
> > @@ -557,6 +559,20 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
> >                 goto re_probe;
> >         }
> >
> > +       /*
> > +        * The devices are added to the dpm_list (resume/suspend (reverse
> > +        * order) list) as they are registered with the driver core. But the
> > +        * order the devices are added doesn't necessarily match the real
> > +        * dependency order.
> > +        *
> > +        * The successful probe order is a much better signal. If a device just
> > +        * probed successfully, then we know for sure that all the devices that
> > +        * probed before it don't depend on the device. So, we can safely move
> > +        * the device to the end of the dpm_list. As more devices probe,
> > +        * they'll automatically get ordered correctly.
> > +        */
> > +       device_pm_move_to_tail(dev);
>
> But it would be good to somehow limit this to the devices affected by
> deferred probing or we'll end up reordering dpm_list unnecessarily for
> many times in the actual majority of cases.

Yes, lots of unnecessary reordering, but doing it only for deferred
probes IS the problem. In the example I gave, the consumer is never
deferred probe because the supplier happens to finish probing before
the consumer probe is even attempted.

I'm open to other suggestions, but I think this is needed for all the
cases or at least more cases to be handled correctly.

One alternative I was thinking was not adding the device to the
dpm_list until it's probed. But I have the vague feeling of other
things between device_add() and device probe that expect the device to
be in the dpm_list.

-Saravana