Message-ID: <93b274fe-5e01-e19e-7870-e3f980385dc1@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:28:56 +0100
From:   Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: Add sysfs attribute for PCI device power state

On 11/18/20 6:49 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 10:19:22PM +0100, Maximilian Luz wrote:
>> On 11/15/20 9:27 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I think something read from sysfs is a snapshot with no guarantee
>>> about how long it will remain valid, so I don't see a problem with the
>>> value being stale by the time userspace consumes it.
>>
>> I agree on this, and the READ_ONCE won't protect against it. The
>> READ_ONCE would only protect against future changes, e.g. something like
>>
>>      const char *state_names[] = { ... };
>>
>>      // check if state is invalid
>>      if (READ(pci_dev->current_state) >= ARRAY_SIZE(state_names))
>>              return sprintf(..., "invalid");
>>      else    // look state up in table
>>              return sprintf(..., state_names[READ(pci_dev->current_state)])
>>
>> Note that I've explicitly marked the problematic reads here: If those
>> are done separately, the invalidity check may pass, but by the time the
>> state name is looked up, the value may have changed and may be invalid.
>>
>> Note further that if we have something like
>>
>>      pci_power_t state = pci_dev->current_state;
>>
>> the compiler is, in theory, free to replace each access to "state" with
>> a read to pci_dev->current_state. As far as I can tell, the whole point
>> of READ_ONCE is to prevent that and ensure that there is only one read.
>>
>> Note also that something like this could be easily introduced by
>> changing the code in pci_power_name(), as that is likely inlined by the
>> compiler. I'm not entirely sure, but I think that the compiler is allowed
>> to, at least theoretically, split that into two reads here and inlining
>> might be done before further optimization.
>>
>> On the other hand, the changes that could lead to issues above are
>> fairly unlikely to cause them as the compiler will _probably_ read the
>> value only once anyways.
> 
> Well, OK, I see your point.  But I'm not convinced it's worth
> cluttering the code for this.  There must be dozens of similar cases,
> and if we do need to worry about this, I'd like to do it
> systematically for all of drivers/pci/ instead of doing it piecemeal.

Fair enough, that's a valid point.

For full formal correctness, writes to current_state should probably
have also been guarded with WRITE_ONCE to prevent the compiler from
splitting the write instruction in addition to the read with READ_ONCE
in this patch.

Again, that's mostly a point about formal correctness and issues like
that shouldn't happen in practice (or if they would, would probably have
broken other parts of the kernel already).

Looking at other sysfs functions, it seems like most of them would have
the same issues, so it makes sense to drop the READ_ONCE.

> I do think it's probably worth making sure we can't set
> dev->current_state to something that's invalid, and also taking a look
> at the PCI core interfaces that take a pci_power_t, i.e., those in
> include/linux/pci.h, to make sure they do the right thing if a driver
> supplies garbage.

As far as I can tell, those checks should already be there.

Thanks,
Max

Powered by blists - more mailing lists