linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] ACPI: scan: Fix device object rescan in acpi_scan_clear

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: <0cd3a0b5-f656-2b4f-b5bc-67680bc80603@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:48:08 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ACPI: scan: Fix device object rescan in
 acpi_scan_clear_dep()

Hi,

On 6/16/21 4:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> In general, acpi_bus_attach() can only be run safely under
> acpi_scan_lock, but that lock cannot be acquired under
> acpi_dep_list_lock, so make acpi_scan_clear_dep() schedule deferred
> execution of acpi_bus_attach() under acpi_scan_lock instead of
> calling it directly.
> 
> This also fixes a possible race between acpi_scan_clear_dep() and
> device removal that might cause a device object that went away to
> be accessed, because acpi_scan_clear_dep() is changed to acquire
> a reference on the consumer device object.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/scan.c |   50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -2115,16 +2115,56 @@ static int acpi_dev_get_first_consumer_d
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int acpi_scan_clear_dep(struct acpi_dep_data *dep, void *data)
> -{
> +struct acpi_scan_clear_dep_work {
> +	struct work_struct work;
>  	struct acpi_device *adev;
> +};
> +
> +static void acpi_scan_clear_dep_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_scan_clear_dep_work *cdw;
> +
> +	cdw = container_of(work, struct acpi_scan_clear_dep_work, work);
>  
> -	acpi_bus_get_device(dep->consumer, &adev);
> +	acpi_scan_lock_acquire();
> +	acpi_bus_attach(cdw->adev, true);
> +	acpi_scan_lock_release();
> +
> +	acpi_dev_put(cdw->adev);
> +	kfree(cdw);
> +}
> +
> +static bool acpi_scan_clear_dep_queue(struct acpi_device *adev)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_scan_clear_dep_work *cdw;
> +
> +	if (adev->dep_unmet)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	cdw = kmalloc(sizeof(*cdw), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!cdw)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	cdw->adev = adev;
> +	INIT_WORK(&cdw->work, acpi_scan_clear_dep_fn);
> +	/*
> +	 * Since the work function may block on the lock until the entire
> +	 * initial enumeration of devices is complete, put it into the unbound
> +	 * workqueue.
> +	 */
> +	queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &cdw->work);

Hmm, I'm a bit worried about this. Even with the system_unbound_wq
some code may expect at least some progress being made with processing
works during the initial enumeration. OTOH this does run pretty early on.

Still I wonder if it would not be better to create + use our own workqueue
for this ?

I guess we can always do this if we run into issues later...

With that said / otherwise the patch looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>

Regards,

Hans




> +
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
> +static int acpi_scan_clear_dep(struct acpi_dep_data *dep, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_device *adev = acpi_bus_get_acpi_device(dep->consumer);
>  
>  	if (adev) {
>  		adev->dep_unmet--;
> -		if (!adev->dep_unmet)
> -			acpi_bus_attach(adev, true);
> +		if (!acpi_scan_clear_dep_queue(adev))
> +			acpi_dev_put(adev);
>  	}
>  
>  	list_del(&dep->node);
> 
> 
>