linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] platform/chromeos: cros

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]

Message-ID: <Y7flCydDtLVwsXIJ@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:08:27 +0800
From:   Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@...omium.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/chromeos: cros_ec: Use per-device lockdep key

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 12:55:37PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> Lockdep reports a bogus possible deadlock on MT8192 Chromebooks due to
> the following lock sequences:
> 
> 1. lock(i2c_register_adapter) [1]; lock(&ec_dev->lock)
> 2. lock(&ec_dev->lock); lock(prepare_lock);
> 
> The actual dependency chains are much longer. The shortened version
> looks somewhat like:
> 
> 1. cros-ec-rpmsg on mtk-scp
>    ec_dev->lock -> prepare_lock
> 2. In rt5682_i2c_probe() on native I2C bus:
>    prepare_lock -> regmap->lock -> (possibly) i2c_adapter->bus_lock
> 3. In rt5682_i2c_probe() on native I2C bus:
>    regmap->lock -> i2c_adapter->bus_lock
> 4. In sbs_probe() on cros-ec-i2c (passthrough) I2C bus on cros-ec
>    i2c_adapter->bus_lock -> ec_dev->lock
> 
> While lockdep is correct that the shared lockdep classes have a circular
> dependency, it is bogus because
> 
>   a) 2+3 happen on a native I2C bus
>   b) 4 happens on the actual EC on ChromeOS devices
>   c) 1 happens on the SCP coprocessor on MediaTek Chromebooks that just
>      happen to expose a cros-ec interface, but do not have a passthrough
>      I2C bus
> 
> In short, the "dependencies" are actually on different devices.

Path of 4 looks weird to me.

Could you point out where sbs_probe() gets to acquire ec_dev->lock?

I may misunderstand: I thought there is no such I2C bus for passthrough
from kernel's point of view (as the bus and devices behind the EC).
See also [2].

[2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.2-rc2/source/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec.c#L241


On a related note, for the commit title: s/chromeos/chrome/ if it gets
chance to have next version.