| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5be85d35baab205d236652b4edae6cacf658a669.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 09:24:19 +0000
From: Mason Zhang (章辉) <Mason.Zhang@...iatek.com>
To: "quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com" <quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com>
CC: Peter Wang (王信友)
<peter.wang@...iatek.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
wsd_upstream <wsd_upstream@...iatek.com>,
"beanhuo@...ron.com" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
"avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
"bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
"j-young.choi@...sung.com" <j-young.choi@...sung.com>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Peng Zhou (周鹏) <Peng.Zhou@...iatek.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Stanley Chu (朱原陞)
<stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
"matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] scsi: ufs: core: fix device management cmd timeout
flow
On Mon, 2022-12-05 at 11:50 -0800, Asutosh Das wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05 2022 at 17:53 -0800, Mason Zhang wrote:
> > From: Mason Zhang <Mason.Zhang@...iatek.com>
> >
> > In ufs error handler flow, host will send device management cmd(NOP
> > OUT)
> > to device for recovery link. If cmd response timeout, and clear
> > doorbell
> > fail, ufshcd_wait_for_dev_cmd will do nothing and return,
> > hba->dev_cmd.complete struct not set to null.
> >
> > In this time, if cmd has been responsed by device, then it will
> > call complete() in __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl, because of complete
> > struct is alloced in stack, then the KE will occur.
> >
>
> What is KE?
>
> > Fix the following crash:
> > ipanic_die+0x24/0x38 [mrdump]
> > die+0x344/0x748
> > arm64_notify_die+0x44/0x104
> > do_debug_exception+0x104/0x1e0
> > el1_dbg+0x38/0x54
> > el1_sync_handler+0x40/0x88
> > el1_sync+0x8c/0x140
> > queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x2e4/0x3c0
> > __ufshcd_transfer_req_compl+0x3b0/0x1164
> > ufshcd_trc_handler+0x15c/0x308
> > ufshcd_host_reset_and_restore+0x54/0x260
> > ufshcd_reset_and_restore+0x28c/0x57c
> > ufshcd_err_handler+0xeb8/0x1b6c
> > process_one_work+0x288/0x964
> > worker_thread+0x4bc/0xc7c
> > kthread+0x15c/0x264
> > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x30
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mason Zhang <Mason.Zhang@...iatek.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > -----
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > index b1f59a5fe632..2b4934a562a6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> > @@ -2979,35 +2979,31 @@ static int ufshcd_wait_for_dev_cmd(struct
> > ufs_hba *hba,
> > err = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > dev_dbg(hba->dev, "%s: dev_cmd request timedout, tag
> > %d\n",
> > __func__, lrbp->task_tag);
> > - if (ufshcd_clear_cmds(hba, 1U << lrbp->task_tag) == 0)
> > {
> > + if (ufshcd_clear_cmds(hba, 1U << lrbp->task_tag) == 0)
> > /* successfully cleared the command, retry if
> > needed */
> > err = -EAGAIN;
> > + /*
> > + * Since clearing the command succeeded we also need to
> > + * clear the task tag bit from the outstanding_reqs
> > + * variable.
> > + */
>
> Does this comment still hold true? Perhaps this needs to be updated?
> Also, perhaps you missed Bart's comments in v1.
> Also, please can you add a section for changes from v1 -> v2?
>
> -asd
>
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->outstanding_lock, flags);
> > + pending = test_bit(lrbp->task_tag,
> > + &hba->outstanding_reqs);
> > + if (pending) {
> > + hba->dev_cmd.complete = NULL;
> > + __clear_bit(lrbp->task_tag,
> > + &hba->outstanding_reqs);
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->outstanding_lock, flags);
> > +
> > + if (!pending) {
> > /*
> > - * Since clearing the command succeeded we also
> > need to
> > - * clear the task tag bit from the
> > outstanding_reqs
> > - * variable.
> > + * The completion handler ran while we tried to
> > + * clear the command.
> > */
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&hba->outstanding_lock,
> > flags);
> > - pending = test_bit(lrbp->task_tag,
> > - &hba->outstanding_reqs);
> > - if (pending) {
> > - hba->dev_cmd.complete = NULL;
> > - __clear_bit(lrbp->task_tag,
> > - &hba->outstanding_reqs);
> > - }
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hba->outstanding_lock,
> > flags);
> > -
> > - if (!pending) {
> > - /*
> > - * The completion handler ran while we
> > tried to
> > - * clear the command.
> > - */
> > - time_left = 1;
> > - goto retry;
> > - }
> > - } else {
> > - dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: failed to clear tag
> > %d\n",
> > - __func__, lrbp->task_tag);
> > + time_left = 1;
> > + goto retry;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.18.0
> >
Dear Asutosh and Bart:
Thanks for yours comments~
I think if clear db fail and then clear outstanding_reqs is not
a problem, because it means cmd is send to device but device not
responed, so host should do device reset and clear all outstanding_reqs
or return error and retry, it also will clear this outstanding_reqs.
And because of we have do test_bit outstanding_reqs first in
spin_lock, so it also will not have race condition between cmd complete
flow.
And about KE, KE means 'kernel exception', because of complete
stuct has been released in stack.
And I wil remove this comment in patchv3.
Thank you again~
Thanks
Mason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists