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: <CAJZ5v0hVLGqCV85m3cYxsuWS_4jBww54VJ9YTogPy_Tha8VUDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:12:25 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ACPI: scan: Fix device object rescan in acpi_scan_clear_dep()

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 4:48 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> 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...

Exactly my thought.

> With that said / otherwise the patch looks good to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>

Thanks!