Date:   Mon, 2 Aug 2021 18:37:46 -0700
From:   David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Kiran Gunda <kgunda@...eaurora.org>,
        Anirudh Ghayal <aghayal@...eaurora.org>,
        Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] spmi: spmi-pmic-arb: fix irq_set_type race
 condition

On 7/31/21 1:20 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> +irqchip driver maintainers
> 
> Quoting David Collins (2021-07-28 11:02:09)
>> The qpnpint_irq_set_type() callback function configures the type
>> (edge vs level) and polarity (high, low, or both) of a particular
>> PMIC interrupt within a given peripheral.  To do this, it reads
>> the three consecutive IRQ configuration registers, modifies the
>> specified IRQ bit within the register values, and finally writes
>> the three modified register values back to the PMIC.  While a
>> spinlock is used to provide mutual exclusion on the SPMI bus
>> during the register read and write calls, there is no locking
>> around the overall read, modify, write sequence.  This opens up
>> the possibility of a race condition if two tasks set the type of
>> a PMIC IRQ within the same peripheral simultaneously.
>>
>> When the race condition is encountered, both tasks will read the
>> old value of the registers and IRQ bits set by one of the tasks
>> will be dropped upon the register write of the other task.  This
>> then leads to PMIC IRQs being enabled with an incorrect type and
>> polarity configured.  Such misconfiguration can lead to an IRQ
>> storm that overwhelms the system and causes it to crash.
>>
>> This race condition and IRQ storm have been observed when using
>> a pair of pm8941-pwrkey devices to handle PMK8350 pwrkey and
>> resin interrupts.  The independent devices probe asynchronously
>> in parallel and can simultaneously request and configure PMIC
>> IRQs in the same PMIC peripheral.
>>
>> For a good case, the IRQ configuration calls end up serialized
>> due to timing deltas and the register read/write sequence looks
>> like this:
>>
>> 1. pwrkey probe: SPMI  read(0x1311): 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
>> 2. pwrkey probe: SPMI write(0x1311): 0x80, 0x80, 0x80
>> 3. resin probe:  SPMI  read(0x1311): 0x80, 0x80, 0x80
>> 4. resin probe:  SPMI write(0x1311): 0xC0, 0xC0, 0xC0
>>
>> The final register states after both devices have requested and
>> enabled their respective IRQs is thus:
>>
>> 0x1311: 0xC0
>> 0x1312: 0xC0
>> 0x1313: 0xC0
>> 0x1314: 0x00
>> 0x1315: 0xC0
>>
>> For a bad case, the IRQ configuration calls end up occurring
>> simultaneously and the race condition is encountered.  The
>> register read/write sequence then looks like this:
>>
>> 1. pwrkey probe: SPMI  read(0x1311): 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
>> 2. resin probe:  SPMI  read(0x1311): 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
>> 3. pwrkey probe: SPMI write(0x1311): 0x80, 0x80, 0x80
>> 4. resin probe:  SPMI write(0x1311): 0x40, 0x40, 0x40
>>
>> In this case, the final register states after both devices have
>> requested and enabled their respective IRQs is thus:
>>
>> 0x1311: 0x40
>> 0x1312: 0x40
>> 0x1313: 0x40
>> 0x1314: 0x00
>> 0x1315: 0xC0
>>
>> This corresponds to the resin IRQ being configured for both
>> rising and falling edges, as expected.  However, the pwrkey IRQ
>> is misconfigured as level type with both polarity high and low
>> set to disabled.  The PMIC IRQ triggering hardware treats this
>> particular register configuration as if level low triggering is
>> enabled.
>>
>> The raw pwrkey IRQ signal is low when the power key is not being
>> pressed.  Thus, the pwrkey IRQ begins firing continuously in an
>> IRQ storm.
>>
>> Fix the race condition by locking a spinlock for the duration of
>> the read, modify, write sequence in the qpnpint_irq_set_type()
>> function.
>>
>> Fixes: 67b563f1f258 ("spmi: pmic_arb: add support for interrupt handling")
>> Signed-off-by: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
>> index bbbd311eda03..379ad6c1c14a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
>> @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ struct apid_data {
>>    * @intr:              address of the SPMI interrupt control registers.
>>    * @cnfg:              address of the PMIC Arbiter configuration registers.
>>    * @lock:              lock to synchronize accesses.
>> + * @irq_lock:          lock to ensure mutual exclusion for IRQ type setting
>>    * @channel:           execution environment channel to use for accesses.
>>    * @irq:               PMIC ARB interrupt.
>>    * @ee:                        the current Execution Environment
>> @@ -146,6 +147,7 @@ struct spmi_pmic_arb {
>>          void __iomem            *core;
>>          resource_size_t         core_size;
>>          raw_spinlock_t          lock;
>> +       raw_spinlock_t          irq_lock;
> 
> Maybe a better name is type_lock given that it's about the irq type
> setting rmw sequence.

Sure, I'm ok with changing the name (assuming that the second lock is kept).


>>          u8                      channel;
>>          int                     irq;
>>          u8                      ee;
>> @@ -600,10 +602,13 @@ static void qpnpint_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
>>   
>>   static int qpnpint_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int flow_type)
>>   {
>> +       struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>>          struct spmi_pmic_arb_qpnpint_type type;
>>          irq_flow_handler_t flow_handler;
>>          u8 irq = hwirq_to_irq(d->hwirq);
>> +       unsigned long flags;
>>   
>> +       raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmic_arb->irq_lock, flags);
>>          qpnpint_spmi_read(d, QPNPINT_REG_SET_TYPE, &type, sizeof(type));
>>   
>>          if (flow_type & (IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING | IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING)) {
>> @@ -616,8 +621,10 @@ static int qpnpint_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int flow_type)
>>                  flow_handler = handle_edge_irq;
>>          } else {
>>                  if ((flow_type & (IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH)) &&
>> -                   (flow_type & (IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW)))
>> +                   (flow_type & (IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW))) {
>> +                       raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmic_arb->irq_lock, flags);
>>                          return -EINVAL;
>> +               }
>>   
>>                  type.type &= ~BIT(irq); /* level trig */
>>                  if (flow_type & IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH)
>> @@ -629,6 +636,8 @@ static int qpnpint_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int flow_type)
>>          }
>>   
>>          qpnpint_spmi_write(d, QPNPINT_REG_SET_TYPE, &type, sizeof(type));
>> +       raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmic_arb->irq_lock, flags);
> 
> Could we have a qpnpint_spmi_set_bit/clear_bit() API that takes the bit
> we want to touch as an argument and then does it all under the originial
> pmic_arb->lock? Then we don't need a different lock, we can avoid that
> drop the lock under the else if condition above, and the area for the
> lock will be contained within the set/clear function instead of here.

pmic_arb->lock is currently used tightly around the code in the SPMI bus 
callback functions which write to SPMI PMIC arbiter registers to trigger 
an SPMI transaction, poll in a loop to wait for completion, and read any 
command results.  Each of these uses correspond to a command defined in 
the MIPI SPMI spec.  There is no read-modify-write command in the spec.

Thus, implementing qpnpint_spmi_set_bit/clear_bit() functions would 
require an approach like one of these:

1. Removing the locking from pmic_arb_read_cmd() and pmic_arb_write_cmd(), 
defining new wrapper functions around them to just contain the locking, 
and adding a read-modify-write wrapper function that locks and calls both 
pmic_arb_read_cmd() and pmic_arb_write_cmd().

2. Or, create a new function that duplicates the contents of both 
pmic_arb_read_cmd() and pmic_arb_write_cmd(), allowing it to issue two 
SPMI bus commands with pmic_arb->lock held.

Option #1 seems like it would result in less clear and messy code than is 
currently present.  It would also have a minor performance impact during 
simultaneous SPMI requests due to non-contentious checks, address look-ups 
and command formatting unnecessarily waiting for lock acquisition.

Option #2 would likely be less messy than option #1; however, it results 
in duplication of low-level code which is undesirable.

I prefer the approach used in this patch as it doesn't disrupt the 
architecture of the SPMI bus and PMIC IRQ functions.  However, I'm willing 
to switch to your suggestion if you think it is a better design and 
cleaner/clearer solution.  Please let me know your thoughts.  Would you 
want option #1, #2, or something else?


>> +
>>          irq_set_handler_locked(d, flow_handler);
>>   
>>          return 0;
>> @@ -1285,6 +1294,7 @@ static int spmi_pmic_arb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   
>>          platform_set_drvdata(pdev, ctrl);
>>          raw_spin_lock_init(&pmic_arb->lock);
>> +       raw_spin_lock_init(&pmic_arb->irq_lock);
>>   
>>          ctrl->cmd = pmic_arb_cmd;
>>          ctrl->read_cmd = pmic_arb_read_cmd;

Thanks,
David

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Powered by blists - more mailing lists