linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] scsi: ufs: Quiesce all scsi devices before shutdown

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: <d85cdb877bced2d6b0a8ba67670271f2@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:03:16 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To:     Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        avri.altman@....com, alim.akhtar@...sung.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        bvanassche@....org, beanhuo@...ron.com, asutoshd@...eaurora.org,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kuohong.wang@...iatek.com, peter.wang@...iatek.com,
        chun-hung.wu@...iatek.com, andy.teng@...iatek.com,
        chaotian.jing@...iatek.com, cc.chou@...iatek.com,
        jiajie.hao@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] scsi: ufs: Quiesce all scsi devices before shutdown

Hi Stanley,

On 2020-08-03 12:25, Stanley Chu wrote:
> Currently I/O request could be still submitted to UFS device while
> UFS is working on shutdown flow. This may lead to racing as below
> scenarios and finally system may crash due to unclocked register
> accesses.
> 
> To fix this kind of issues, in ufshcd_shutdown(),
> 
> 1. Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device by
>    ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally" to let runtime PM framework
>    manage and prevent concurrent runtime operations by incoming I/O
>    requests.
> 
> 2. Specifically quiesce all SCSI devices to block all I/O requests
>    after device is resumed.
> 
> Example of racing scenario: While UFS device is runtime-suspended
> 
> Thread #1: Executing UFS shutdown flow, e.g.,
>            ufshcd_suspend(UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM)
> 
> Thread #2: Executing runtime resume flow triggered by I/O request,
>            e.g., ufshcd_resume(UFS_RUNTIME_PM)
> 
> This breaks the assumption that UFS PM flows can not be running
> concurrently and some unexpected racing behavior may happen.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>
> ---
> Changes:
>   - Since v4: Use pm_runtime_get_sync() instead of resuming UFS device
> by ufshcd_runtime_resume() "internally".
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> index 307622284239..fc01171d13b1 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
> @@ -159,6 +159,12 @@ struct ufs_pm_lvl_states ufs_pm_lvl_states[] = {
>  	{UFS_POWERDOWN_PWR_MODE, UIC_LINK_OFF_STATE},
>  };
> 
> +#define ufshcd_scsi_for_each_sdev(fn) \
> +	list_for_each_entry(starget, &hba->host->__targets, siblings) { \
> +		__starget_for_each_device(starget, NULL, \
> +					  fn); \
> +	}
> +
>  static inline enum ufs_dev_pwr_mode
>  ufs_get_pm_lvl_to_dev_pwr_mode(enum ufs_pm_level lvl)
>  {
> @@ -8629,6 +8635,13 @@ int ufshcd_runtime_idle(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufshcd_runtime_idle);
> 
> +static void ufshcd_quiesce_sdev(struct scsi_device *sdev, void *data)
> +{
> +	/* Suspended devices are already quiesced so can be skipped */

Why can runtime suspended sdevs be skipped? Block layer can still resume
them at any time, no?

> +	if (!pm_runtime_suspended(&sdev->sdev_gendev))
> +		scsi_device_quiesce(sdev);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * ufshcd_shutdown - shutdown routine
>   * @hba: per adapter instance
> @@ -8640,6 +8653,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ufshcd_runtime_idle);
>  int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
> +	struct scsi_target *starget;
> 
>  	if (!hba->is_powered)
>  		goto out;
> @@ -8647,11 +8661,26 @@ int ufshcd_shutdown(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>  	if (ufshcd_is_ufs_dev_poweroff(hba) && ufshcd_is_link_off(hba))
>  		goto out;
> 
> -	if (pm_runtime_suspended(hba->dev)) {
> -		ret = ufshcd_runtime_resume(hba);
> -		if (ret)
> -			goto out;
> -	}
> +	/*
> +	 * Let runtime PM framework manage and prevent concurrent runtime
> +	 * operations with shutdown flow.
> +	 */
> +	pm_runtime_get_sync(hba->dev);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Quiesce all SCSI devices to prevent any non-PM requests sending
> +	 * from block layer during and after shutdown.
> +	 *
> +	 * Here we can not use blk_cleanup_queue() since PM requests
> +	 * (with BLK_MQ_REQ_PREEMPT flag) are still required to be sent
> +	 * through block layer. Therefore SCSI command queued after the
> +	 * scsi_target_quiesce() call returned will block until
> +	 * blk_cleanup_queue() is called.
> +	 *
> +	 * Besides, scsi_target_"un"quiesce (e.g., scsi_target_resume) can
> +	 * be ignored since shutdown is one-way flow.
> +	 */
> +	ufshcd_scsi_for_each_sdev(ufshcd_quiesce_sdev);

Any reasons why don't use scsi_target_quiesce() here?

Thanks,

Can Guo.

> 
>  	ret = ufshcd_suspend(hba, UFS_SHUTDOWN_PM);
>  out: