linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pata_parport: add driver (PARIDE replacement)

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]

Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 12:06:06 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     Ondrej Zary <linux@...y.sk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tim Waugh <tim@...erelk.net>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pata_parport: add driver (PARIDE replacement)

On 11/15/22 04:25, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> On Monday 14 November 2022 09:03:28 Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 11/14/22 16:53, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>>> On Monday 14 November 2022, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/22 20:17, Ondrej Zary wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 19 October 2022 09:34:31 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>> It's been a while - did you get a chance to make some progress on
>>>>>> this?  Do you need any help to unblock you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry again, I'm back now. Trying to fix locking problems.
>>>>> Added this to each function for analysis how the functions are called wrt.
>>>>> locking:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	printk("%s, locked=%d\n", __FUNCTION__, spin_is_locked(ap->lock));
>>>>
>>>> Do you have your code somewhere that we can look at ?
>>>
>>> This is the current version with debug printks. I've also added dump_stack()
>>> to find out the code path but haven't analyzed the output yet.
>>
>> Can you send a proper patch ? Or a link to a git tree ? That is easier to
>> handle than pasted code in an email...
> 
> Patch against what? I don't have a git server.

patch against current 6.1-rc, or against an older kernel should be OK too.
But please "git send-email" a patch, or push your dev tree to github ?

> I've done some call trace analysis. These code paths are calling
> pata_parport functions with ap->lock locked during init.
> 
> Comm: kworker, Workqueue: ata_sff ata_sff_pio_task
> ata_sff_hsm_move -> ata_pio_sectors-> ata_sff_altstatus -> pata_parport_tf_read -> pata_parport_check_altstatus
> ata_sff_hsm_move -> ata_sff_altstatus -> pata_parport_tf_read -> pata_parport_check_altstatus
> ata_sff_pio_task -> ata_sff_busy_wait -> pata_parport_check_status
> ata_sff_hsm_move -> ata_wait_idle -> ata_sff_busy_wait -> pata_parport_check_status
> ata_sff_hsm_move -> ata_hsm_qc_complete -> ata_sff_irq_on -> ata_wait_idle -> ata_sff_busy_wait -> pata_parport_check_status
> ata_sff_pio_task -> ata_sff_hsm_move -> ata_pio_sectors -> ata_pio_sector -> ata_pio_xfer -> pata_parport_data_xfer
> ata_sff_pio_task -> ata_sff_hsm_move -> pata_parport_data_xfer
> ata_sff_pio_task -> ata_sff_hsm_move -> pata_parport_tf_read
> ata_sff_hsm_move -> ata_hsm_qc_complete -> ata_qc_complete -> fill_result_tf -> ata_sff_qc_fill_rtf -> pata_parport_tf_read
> ata_sff_hsm_move -> ata_pio_sectors -> ata_sff_altstatus -> pata_parport_check_altstatus
> ata_sff_hsm_move -> ata_sff_altstatus -> pata_parport_check_altstatus
> 
> Comm: modprobe
> ata_host_start -> ata_eh_freeze_port -> ata_sff_freeze -> pata_parport_check_status
> 
> Comm: scsi_eh_4
> ata_eh_recover -> ata_eh_reset -> ata_eh_thaw_port -> ata_sff_thaw -> ata_sff_irq_on -> ata_wait_idle -> ata_sff_busy_wait -> pata_parport_check_status
> ata_eh_reset -> ata_eh_freeze_port -> ata_sff_freeze -> pata_parport_check_status
> ata_scsi_error -> ata_scsi_port_error_handler -> ata_port_freeze -> ata_sff_freeze -> pata_parport_check_status
> ata_sff_error_handler -> pata_parport_drain_fifo -> pata_parport_check_status

What exactly are the issues you are having with ap->lock ? It looks like
you have done a lot of analysis of the code, but without any context about
the problem, I do not understand what I am looking at.

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research