Message-ID: <e69bd5a6b73d5c652130bf4fa077aac0@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Sat, 09 Jan 2021 12:45:08 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To:     Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
Cc:     asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
        hongwus@...eaurora.org, ziqichen@...eaurora.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        Nitin Rawat <nitirawa@...eaurora.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: Protect PM ops and err_handler from user
 access through sysfs

On 2021-01-08 19:29, Bean Huo wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-01-06 at 09:20 +0800, Can Guo wrote:
>> Hi Bean,
>> 
>> On 2021-01-06 02:38, Bean Huo wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 09:07 +0800, Can Guo wrote:
>> > > On 2021-01-05 04:05, Bean Huo wrote:
>> > > > On Sat, 2021-01-02 at 05:59 -0800, Can Guo wrote:
>> > > > > + * @shutting_down: flag to check if shutdown has been
>> > > > > invoked
>> > > >
>> > > > I am not much sure if this flag is need, since once PM going in
>> > > > shutdown path, what will be returnded by pm_runtime_get_sync()?
>> > > >
>> > > > If pm_runtime_get_sync() will fail, just check its return.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > That depends. During/after shutdown, for UFS's case only,
>> > > pm_runtime_get_sync(hba->dev) will most likely return 0,
>> > > because it is already RUNTIME_ACTIVE, pm_runtime_get_sync()
>> > > will directly return 0... meaning you cannot count on it.
>> > >
>> > > Check Stanley's change -
>> > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1341389/
>> > >
>> > > Can Guo.
>> >
>> > Can,
>> >
>> > Thanks for pointing out that.
>> >
>> > Based on my understanding, that patch is redundent. maybe I
>> > misundestood Linux shutdown sequence.
>> 
>> Sorry, do you mean Stanley's change is redundant?
> 
> yes.
> 

No, it is definitely needed. As Stanley replied you in another
thread, it is not protecting I/Os from user layer, but from
other subsystems during shutdown.

>> 
>> >
>> > I checked the shutdown flow:
>> >
>> > 1. Set the "system_state" variable
>> > 2. Disable usermod to ensure that no user from userspace can start
>> > a
>> > request
>> 
>> I hope it is like what you interpreted, but step #2 only stops
>> UMH(#265)
>> but not all user space activities. Whereas, UMH is for kernel space
>> calling
>> user space.
> 
> 
> Can,
> 
> I did further study and homework on the Linux shutdown in the last few
> days. Yes, you are right, usermodehelper_disable() is to prevent
> executing the process from the kernel space.
> 
> But I didn't reproduce this "maybe" race issue while shutdown. no
> matter how I torment my system, once Linux shutdown/halt/reboot starts,
> nobody can access the sysfs node. I create 10 processes in the user
> space and constantly access UFS sysfs node, also, fio is running in the
> background for the normal data read/write. there is a shutdown thread
> that will randomly trigger shutdown/halt/reboot. but no race issue
> appears.
> 
> I don't know if this is a hypothetical issue(the race between shutdown
> flow and sysfs node access), it may not really exist in the Linux
> envriroment. everytime, the shutdonw flow will be:
> 
> e10_sync_handler()->e10_svc()->do_e10_svc()->__do_sys_reboot()-
>> kernel_poweroff/kernel_halt()->device_shutdown()->platform_shutdown()-
>> ufshcd_platform_shutdown()->ufshcd_shutdown().
> 
> I think before going into the kernel shutdown, the userspace cannot
> issue new requests anymore. otherwise, this would be a big issue.
> 
> pm_runtime_get_sync() will return 0 or failure while shutdown? the
> answer is not important now, maybe as you said, it is always 0. But in
> my testing, it didn't get there the system has been shutdown. Which
> means once shutdonw starts, sysfs node access path cannot reach
> pm_runtime_get_sync(). (note, I don't know if sysfs node access thread
> has been disabled or not)
> 
> 
> Responsibly say, I didn't reproduce this issue on my system (ubuntu),
> maybe you are using Android. I am not an expert on this topic, if you
> have the best idea on how to reproduce this issue. please please let me
> try. appreciate it!!!!!
> 

When you do a reboot/shutdown/poweroff, how your system behaves highly
depends on how the reboot cmd is implemented in C code under /sbin/.

On Ubuntu, reboot looks like:
$ reboot --help
reboot [OPTIONS...] [ARG]

Reboot the system.

      --help      Show this help
      --halt      Halt the machine
   -p --poweroff  Switch off the machine
      --reboot    Reboot the machine
   -f --force     Force immediate halt/power-off/reboot
   -w --wtmp-only Don't halt/power-off/reboot, just write wtmp record
   -d --no-wtmp   Don't write wtmp record
      --no-wall   Don't send wall message before halt/power-off/reboot


On a pure Linux with a initrd RAM FS built from busybox, reboot looks 
like:
# reboot --help
BusyBox v1.30.1 (2019-05-24 12:53:36 IST) multi-call binary.

Usage: reboot [-d DELAY] [-n] [-f]

Reboot the system

         -d SEC  Delay interval
         -n      Do not sync
         -f      Force (don't go through init)


For example, when you work on a pure Linux with a filesystem built from
busybox, when you hit reboot cmd, halt_main() will be called. And based
on the reboot options passed to reboot cmd, halt_main() behaves 
differently.

A plain reboot cmd does things like sync filesystem, send SIGKILL to all
processes (except for init), remount all filesytem as read-only and so 
on
before invoking linux kernel reboot syscall. In this case, we are safe.

However, if you do a "reboot -f", halt_main() directly invokes reboot().
And with "reboot -f", I can easily reproduce the race condition we are
talking about here - it is not based on imagination.

Find the patch I used for replication in the attachment, fix conflicts
if any. After boot up, the cmd lines I used are

# while true; do cat /sys/devices/platform/soc@...ufshc*/rpm_lvl; done &
# reboot -f

Can Guo.

> 
> Thanks,
> Bean
> 
> 
>> 
>> 264     system_state = state;
>> 265     usermodehelper_disable();
>> 266     device_shutdown();
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Can Guo.

View attachment "0001-scsi-ufs-Reproduce-race-condition-btw-sysfs-access-a.patch" of type "text/x-diff" (1858 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists