linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] PCI/DOE: Remove the pci_doe_flush

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y4Ty688S9k7kV/d6@iweiny-desk3>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:42:03 -0800
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     "Li, Ming" <ming4.li@...el.com>
CC:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] PCI/DOE: Remove the pci_doe_flush_mb() call

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 01:51:24PM +0800, Li, Ming wrote:
> 
> On 11/28/2022 12:03 PM, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> > 
> > pci_doe_flush_mb() does not work and is currently unused.
> > 
> > It does not work because each struct doe_mb is managed as part of the
> > PCI device.  They can't go away as long as the PCI device exists.
> > pci_doe_flush_mb() was set up to flush the workqueue and prevent any
> > further submissions to the mailboxes when the PCI device goes away.
> > Unfortunately, this was fundamentally flawed.  There was no guarantee
> > that a struct doe_mb remained after pci_doe_flush_mb() returned.
> > Therefore, the doe_mb state could be invalid when those threads waiting
> > on the workqueue were flushed.
> > 
> > Fortunately the current code is safe because all callers make a
> > synchronous call to pci_doe_submit_task() and maintain a reference on
> > the PCI device.  Therefore pci_doe_flush_mb() is effectively unused.
> > 
> > Rather than attempt to fix pci_doe_flush_mb() just remove the dead code
> > around pci_doe_flush_mb().
> > 
> > Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> 
> Some comments inline.
> 
> > 
> > ---
> > Changes from V2:
> > 	Lukas
> > 		Clarify commit message.
> > 	Jonathan
> > 		Add comment for changed poll interval.
> 
> ...
> 
> >  
> > -static int pci_doe_wait(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, unsigned long timeout)
> > -{
> > -	if (wait_event_timeout(doe_mb->wq,
> > -			       test_bit(PCI_DOE_FLAG_CANCEL, &doe_mb->flags),
> > -			       timeout))
> > -		return -EIO;
> > -	return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> >  static void pci_doe_write_ctrl(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u32 val)
> >  {
> >  	struct pci_dev *pdev = doe_mb->pdev;
> > @@ -82,12 +73,9 @@ static int pci_doe_abort(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb)
> >  	pci_doe_write_ctrl(doe_mb, PCI_DOE_CTRL_ABORT);
> >  
> >  	do {
> > -		int rc;
> >  		u32 val;
> >  
> > -		rc = pci_doe_wait(doe_mb, PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL);
> > -		if (rc)
> > -			return rc;
> > +		msleep_interruptible(PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL_MSECS);
> >  		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_STATUS, &val);
> 
> Looks like we don't have to use msleep_interruptible() here, can use msleep() directly?

I don't know.  I think your suggestion below holds here too.  Unfortunately
that could mask the signal received in the case below.  But I think that is
going to be rare enough we could ignore it.

> 
> >  
> >  		/* Abort success! */
> > @@ -278,11 +266,7 @@ static void doe_statemachine_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >  			signal_task_abort(task, -EIO);
> >  			return;
> >  		}
> > -		rc = pci_doe_wait(doe_mb, PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL);
> > -		if (rc) {
> > -			signal_task_abort(task, rc);
> > -			return;
> > -		}
> > +		msleep_interruptible(PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL_MSECS);
> >  		goto retry_resp;
> >  	}
> 
> I guess that you use msleep_interruptible() here for aborting current task when signals come.
> So there should be signal_task_abort() and return when msleep_interruptible() receives a signal.

Yes this makes much more sense.  Thanks for looking!
Ira

> 
> Thanks
> Ming
> 
> >  
> > @@ -383,21 +367,6 @@ static void pci_doe_destroy_workqueue(void *mb)
> >  	destroy_workqueue(doe_mb->work_queue);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static void pci_doe_flush_mb(void *mb)
> > -{
> > -	struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb = mb;
> > -
> > -	/* Stop all pending work items from starting */
> > -	set_bit(PCI_DOE_FLAG_DEAD, &doe_mb->flags);
> > -
> > -	/* Cancel an in progress work item, if necessary */
> > -	set_bit(PCI_DOE_FLAG_CANCEL, &doe_mb->flags);
> > -	wake_up(&doe_mb->wq);
> > -
> > -	/* Flush all work items */
> > -	flush_workqueue(doe_mb->work_queue);
> > -}
> > -
> >  /**
> >   * pcim_doe_create_mb() - Create a DOE mailbox object
> >   *
> > @@ -450,14 +419,6 @@ struct pci_doe_mb *pcim_doe_create_mb(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 cap_offset)
> >  		return ERR_PTR(rc);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	/*
> > -	 * The state machine and the mailbox should be in sync now;
> > -	 * Set up mailbox flush prior to using the mailbox to query protocols.
> > -	 */
> > -	rc = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, pci_doe_flush_mb, doe_mb);
> > -	if (rc)
> > -		return ERR_PTR(rc);
> > -
> >  	rc = pci_doe_cache_protocols(doe_mb);
> >  	if (rc) {
> >  		pci_err(pdev, "[%x] failed to cache protocols : %d\n",
>