linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (dell-smm) Unify i8k_ioctl() and i8k_ioctl

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: <20211123160224.3khzbq2jil66wzgj@pali>
Date:   Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:02:24 +0100
From:   Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>, jdelvare@...e.com,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwmon: (dell-smm) Unify i8k_ioctl() and
 i8k_ioctl_unlocked()

On Tuesday 23 November 2021 08:00:51 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 08:43:10PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 22 November 2021 11:28:30 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 11/22/21 11:10 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > On Monday 22 November 2021 19:50:14 Armin Wolf wrote:
> > > > > Am 22.11.21 um 18:55 schrieb Guenter Roeck:
> > > > > > On 11/22/21 8:01 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday 20 November 2021 18:03:19 Armin Wolf wrote:
> > > > > > > > The only purpose of i8k_ioctl() is to call i8k_ioctl_unlocked()
> > > > > > > > with i8k_mutex held. Judging from the hwmon code, this mutex
> > > > > > > > only needs to be held when setting the fan speed/mode.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Really? I think that there is no difference between setting and getting
> > > > > > > fan speed/mode. At least I do not see why 'set' needs mutex and 'get' do
> > > > > > > not need it. Some more explanation is needed...
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > I8K_SET_FAN sets the fan speed and returns the current status. Without
> > > > > > locking, the returned status may not match or be associated with the
> > > > > > previous
> > > > > > set operation.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Maybe that doesn't matter, and the synchronization is not needed. If so,
> > > > > > you can probably remove the locking entirely.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Guenter
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is the reason i kept the locking code. Since i do not want to break
> > > > > the ioctl interfacein any way, removing the locking code seems too risky
> > > > > to me.
> > > > 
> > > > I see. That is a good point.
> > > > 
> > > > But there is same race condition also when at the same time going to
> > > > change speed via ioctl and also via hwmon sysfs.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I thought the sysfs code does not change the fan speed and report the
> > > fan status in the same request. Did I miss something ?
> > 
> > No. I mean something different. Let me to write trace call:
> > 
> > CPU 0:                          CPU 1:
> >                                 1. dell_smm_write()
> > 1. ioctl(I8K_SET_FAN)
> > 2. i8k_set_fan()
> >                                 2. i8k_set_fan()
> > 3. i8k_get_fan_status()
> > 
> > So to ensure that i8k_get_fan_status() on CPU 0 returns value which
> > belongs to i8k_set_fan() from CPU 0 it is needed to still use mutex.
> > 
> > Armin is right here and I think that patch is correct.
> 
> Quoting your earlier reply:
> 
> > Really? I think that there is no difference between setting and getting
> > fan speed/mode. At least I do not see why 'set' needs mutex and 'get' do
> > not need it. Some more explanation is needed...
> 
> This was the reason for my comment. Your latest reply is leaving me a bit
> puzzled. If you are ok with the patch as-is, please provide a Reviewed-by:
> or Acked-by: tag.

Sorry for that. I should have explicitly wrote that I realized how it
works after Armin explained it.