Message-ID: <606774efd4d89f0ea78cefeb428cc9e1@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Sat, 09 Jan 2021 12:51:45 +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 2021-01-09 12:45, Can Guo wrote:
> 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.

Oops... forgot the logs:

#
# while true; do cat /sys/devices/platform/soc@...ufshc*/rpm_lvl; done &
3
3
3
3
....
# reboot -f
3
3
3
....
[   17.959206] sd 0:0:0:5: [sdf] Synchronizing SCSI cache
3
[   17.964833] sd 0:0:0:4: [sde] Synchronizing SCSI cache
[   17.970224] sd 0:0:0:3: [sdd] Synchronizing SCSI cache
[   17.975574] sd 0:0:0:2: [sdc] Synchronizing SCSI cache
3
[   17.981034] sd 0:0:0:1: [sdb] Synchronizing SCSI cache
[   17.986493] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache
3
[   17.991870] [DEBUG]ufshcd_shutdown: UFS SHUTDOWN START
[   17.998902] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[   18.003648] kernel BUG at drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-sysfs.c:62!
[   18.009286] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[   18.034249] pstate: 40c00005 (nZcv daif +PAN +UAO)
[   18.039185] pc : rpm_lvl_show+0x38/0x40
[   18.043137] lr : dev_attr_show+0x1c/0x58
[   18.132552] Call trace:
[   18.135076]  rpm_lvl_show+0x38/0x40
[   18.138672]  sysfs_kf_seq_show+0xa8/0x140
[   18.142802]  kernfs_seq_show+0x28/0x30
[   18.146665]  seq_read+0x1d8/0x4b0
[   18.150072]  kernfs_fop_read+0x12c/0x1f0
[   18.154109]  do_iter_read+0x184/0x1c0
[   18.157882]  vfs_readv+0x68/0xb0
....

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists