| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 16:55:55 +0200
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: Tushar Nimkar <quic_tnimkar@...cinc.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bjorn.andersson@...nel.org,
Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>,
quic_mkshah@...cinc.com, quic_lsrao@...cinc.com,
bvanassche@....org, Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: PM-runtime: supplier looses track of consumer during probe
On 4/11/22 11:19, Tushar Nimkar wrote:
> Hi linux-pm/linux-scsi,
>
> Gentle reminder!
>
> Can you please provide your suggestions on below race?
>
> Thanks, Tushar Nimkar
>
> On 10/14/2022 4:20 PM, Tushar Nimkar wrote:
>> Hi linux-pm/linux-scsi,
>>
>> We have included fix [1] but continuing to observe supplier loosing track of consumer.
>>
>> Below is trace snippet with additional logging added.
>> Here consumer is 0:0:0:0 and supplier is 0:0:0:49488. In Last three lines consumer resume is completed but supplier is put down.
>>
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880014: rpm_idle: 0:0:0:0 flags-4 cnt-0 dep-0 auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880017: bprint: pm_runtime_mark_last_busy.46700: :#205 dev_name:0:0:0:0 ktime_get_mono_fast_ns():852365364
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880019: rpm_suspend: 0:0:0:0 flags-8 cnt-0 dep-0 auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880022: bprint: pm_runtime_put_noidle.44083: pm_runtime_put_noidle: #112 dev_name:0:0:0:49488 dev usage_count:5 decremented usage count
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880023: bprint: pm_runtime_put_noidle.44083: pm_runtime_put_noidle: #112 dev_name:0:0:0:49488 dev usage_count:4 decremented usage count
>> kworker/u16:2-142 0.880024: rpm_resume: 0:0:0:0 flags-4 cnt-1 dep-0 auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880025: bprint: __rpm_put_suppliers: __rpm_put_suppliers: #348 consumer:0:0:0:0 supplier:0:0:0:49488 usage_count:4
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880061: rpm_idle: 0:0:0:49488 flags-1 cnt-4 dep-0 auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880062: rpm_return_int: rpm_idle+0x16c:0:0:0:49488 ret=-11
>> kworker/u16:2-142 0.880062: bprint: __pm_runtime_resume: __pm_runtime_resume: #1147 dev_name:0:0:0:49488 dev usage_count:5 incremented usage count
>> kworker/u16:2-142 0.880063: rpm_resume: 0:0:0:49488 flags-4 cnt-5 dep-0 auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>> kworker/u16:2-142 0.880063: rpm_return_int: rpm_resume+0x690:0:0:0:49488 ret=1
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880063: rpm_return_int: rpm_suspend+0x68:0:0:0:0 ret=0
>> kworker/u16:2-142 0.880063: bprint: rpm_get_suppliers: rpm_get_suppliers: #300 consumer:0:0:0:0 supplier:0:0:0:49488 usage_count:5
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880065: bprint: pm_runtime_put_noidle.44083: pm_runtime_put_noidle: #112 dev_name:0:0:0:49488 dev usage_count:4 decremented usage count
>> kworker/u16:2-142 0.880065: bprint: pm_runtime_mark_last_busy.44088: :#205 dev_name:0:0:0:0 ktime_get_mono_fast_ns():852413749
>> kworker/u16:2-142 0.880065: rpm_idle: 0:0:0:0 flags-1 cnt-1 dep-0 auto-1 p-0 irq-0 child-0
>> kworker/u16:2-142 0.880065: rpm_return_int: rpm_idle+0x16c:0:0:0:0 ret=-11
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880066: bprint: __rpm_put_suppliers: __rpm_put_suppliers: #348 consumer:0:0:0:0 supplier:0:0:0:49488 usage_count:4
>> kworker/u16:0-7 0.880067: rpm_return_int: rpm_idle+0x16c:0:0:0:0 ret=-16
>> kworker/u16:2-142 0.880067: rpm_return_int: rpm_resume+0x690:0:0:0:0 ret=0
>>
>> Upon looking into this further the race looks to be in below two processes running in parallel and process-1 is putting down supplier at [C] because process-2 is setting runtime_status as resuming at [D].
>>
>> Also as per runtime PM documentation
>> In order to use autosuspend, subsystems or drivers must call
>> pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(), and thereafter they should use the various `*_autosuspend()` helper functions...
>>
>> It was also observed that *_autosuspend() API at point [A] was invoked without first invoking pm_runtime_use_autosuspend() which return expiration as zero at point [B] and proceeds ahead for immediate runtime suspend of device which seems lead to this race condition.
>>
>> Process -1
>> ufshcd_async_scan context (process 1)
>> scsi_autopm_put_device() //0:0:0:0
I am having trouble following your description. What function is calling
scsi_autopm_put_device() here?
>> pm_runtime_put_sync()
>> __pm_runtime_idle()
>> rpm_idle() -- RPM_GET_PUT(4)
>> __rpm_callback
>> scsi_runtime_idle()
>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy()
>> pm_runtime_autosuspend() --[A]
>> rpm_suspend() -- RPM_AUTO(8)
>> pm_runtime_autosuspend_expiration() use_autosuspend is false return 0 --- [B]
>> __update_runtime_status to RPM_SUSPENDING
>> __rpm_callback()
>> __rpm_put_suppliers(dev, false)
>> __update_runtime_status to RPM_SUSPENDED
>> rpm_suspend_suppliers()
>> rpm_idle() for supplier -- RPM_ASYNC(1) return (-EAGAIN) [ Other consumer active for supplier]
>> rpm_suspend() – END with return=0
>> scsi_runtime_idle() END return (-EBUSY) always.
Not following here either. Which device is EBUSY and why?
>> /* Do that if resume fails too.*/
>> (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_RESUMING && retval))) return -EBUSY
>> __rpm_put_suppliers(dev, false) -- [C]
>> rpm_idle() END return -EBUSY
>>
>> Process -2
>> sd_probe context (Process 2)
>> scsi_autopm_get_device() //0:0:0:0
>> __pm_runtime_resume(RPM_GET_PUT)
>> rpm_resume() -- RPM_GET_PUT(4)
>> __update_runtime_status to RPM_RESUMING --[D]
>> __rpm_callback()
>> rpm_get_suppliers()
>> __pm_runtime_resume() - RPM_GET_PUT(4) – supplier
>> rpm_resume() for supplier.
>> __update_runtime_status to RPM_ACTIVE
>> pm_runtime_mark_last_busy ()
>> rpm_resume() END return 0
>>
>> Can you please provide your suggestions on addressing above race condition?
>>
>> This is also reported at [2].
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4748074.GXAFRqVoOG@kreacher/T/
>> [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/10/12/259
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tushar Nimkar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists