| 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: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 20:44:03 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Nitin Rawat <quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com>,
Tushar Nimkar <quic_tnimkar@...cinc.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bjorn.andersson@...nel.org, 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 Thursday, December 1, 2022 8:28:25 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 2:10 PM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 29/11/22 18:56, Nitin Rawat wrote:
> > > Hi Adrian,
> > >
> > > On 11/21/2022 11:38 AM, Tushar Nimkar wrote:
> > >> Hi Adrian,
> > >>
> > >> On 11/18/2022 8:25 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > >>> On 4/11/22 11:19, Tushar Nimkar wrote:
> > >>>> Hi linux-pm/linux-scsi,
> > >>
> > >>>>> 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?
> > >>>
> > >> Below is flow which calls scsi_autopm_put_device()
> > >> Process -1
> > >> ufshcd_async_scan()
> > >> scsi_probe_and_add_lun()
> > >> scsi_add_lun()
> > >> slave_configure()
> > >> scsi_sysfs_add_sdev()
> > >> scsi_autopm_get_device()
> > >> device_add() <- invoked [Process 2] sd_probe()
> > >> scsi_autopm_put_device()
> > >>
> > >>>>> 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?
> > >>
> > >> scsi_runtime_idle() return -EBUSY always [3]
> > >> Storage/scsi team can better explain -EBUSY implementation.
> > >
> > > EBUSY is returned from below code for consumer dev 0:0:0:0.
> > > scsi_runtime_idle is called from scsi_autopm_put_device which inturn is called from ufshcd_async_scan (Process 1 as per above call stack)
> > > static int scsi_runtime_idle(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > :
> > >
> > > if (scsi_is_sdev_device(dev)) {
> > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(dev);
> > > pm_runtime_autosuspend(dev);
> > > return -EBUSY; ---> EBUSY returned from here.
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >>
> > >> [3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/scsi/scsi_pm.c?h=next-20221118#n210
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4748074.GXAFRqVoOG@kreacher/T/
> > >>>>> [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/10/12/259
> >
> > It looks to me like __rpm_callback() makes assumptions about
> > dev->power.runtime_status that are not necessarily true because
> > dev->power.lock is dropped.
>
> Well, this happens because rpm_idle() calls __rpm_callback() and
> allows it to run concurrently with rpm_suspend() and rpm_resume(), so
> one of them may change runtime_status to RPM_SUSPENDING or
> RPM_RESUMING while __rpm_callback() is running.
>
> It is somewhat questionable whether or not this should be allowed to
> happen, but since it is generally allowed to suspend the device from
> its .runtime_idle callback, there is not too much that can be done
> about it.
But this means that the patch below should help too.
I actually think that we can do both, because rpm_idle() doesn't have to do
the whole device links dance and the fact that it still calls __rpm_callback()
is a clear oversight.
---
drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
@@ -484,7 +484,17 @@ static int rpm_idle(struct device *dev,
dev->power.idle_notification = true;
- retval = __rpm_callback(callback, dev);
+ if (dev->power.irq_safe)
+ spin_unlock(&dev->power.lock);
+ else
+ spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
+
+ retval = callback(dev);
+
+ if (dev->power.irq_safe)
+ spin_lock(&dev->power.lock);
+ else
+ spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
dev->power.idle_notification = false;
wake_up_all(&dev->power.wait_queue);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists