linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 02/11] driver core: Add dma_cleanup callback in bus

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: <YhZzLmjVckPRLYj2@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:47:26 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Diana Craciun <diana.craciun@....nxp.com>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Jacob jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/11] driver core: Add dma_cleanup callback in
 bus_type

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 05:05:23PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2022-02-23 16:03, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:30:11AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:09:01AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 03:06:35PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:46:27AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 01:04:00PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 1 - tmp->driver is non-NULL because tmp is already bound.
> > > > > > >    1.a - If tmp->driver->driver_managed_dma == 0, the group must currently be
> > > > > > > DMA-API-owned as a whole. Regardless of what driver dev has unbound from,
> > > > > > > its removal does not release someone else's DMA API (co-)ownership.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is an uncommon locking pattern, but it does work. It relies on
> > > > > > the mutex being an effective synchronization barrier for an unlocked
> > > > > > store:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 				      WRITE_ONCE(dev->driver, NULL)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Only the driver core should be messing with the dev->driver pointer as
> > > > > when it does so, it already has the proper locks held.  Do I need to
> > > > > move that to a "private" location so that nothing outside of the driver
> > > > > core can mess with it?
> > > > 
> > > > It would be nice, I've seen a abuse and mislocking of it in drivers
> > > 
> > > Though to be clear, what Robin is describing is still keeping the
> > > dev->driver stores in dd.c, just reading it in a lockless way from
> > > other modules.
> > 
> > "other modules" should never care if a device has a driver bound to it
> > because instantly after the check happens, it can change so what ever
> > logic it wanted to do with that knowledge is gone.
> > 
> > Unless the bus lock is held that the device is on, but that should be
> > only accessable from within the driver core as it controls that type of
> > stuff, not any random other part of the kernel.
> > 
> > And in looking at this, ick, there are loads of places in the kernel
> > that are thinking that this pointer being set to something actually
> > means something.  Sometimes it does, but lots of places, it doesn't as
> > it can change.
> 
> That's fine. In this case we're only talking about the low-level IOMMU code
> which has to be in cahoots with the driver core to some degree (via these
> new callbacks) anyway, but if you're uncomfortable about relying on
> dev->driver even there, I can live with that. There are several potential
> places to capture the relevant information in IOMMU API private data, from
> the point in really_probe() where it *is* stable, and then never look at
> dev->driver ever again - even from .dma_cleanup() or future equivalent,
> which is the aspect from whence this whole proof-of-concept tangent span
> out.

For a specific driver core callback, like dma_cleanup(), all is fine,
but you shouldn't be caring about a driver pointer in your bus callback
for stuff like this as you "know" what happened by virtue of the
callback being called.

thanks,

greg k-h