[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5bf4ca0f643bcd59f5761cdd29403433046a9995.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:08:45 +0100
From: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Gerd Bayer <gbayer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] PCI: s390: Fix use-after-free of PCI bus
resources with s390 per-function hotplug
On Fri, 2023-02-24 at 05:19 +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 01:53:45PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Hmm. Good question. Off the top of my head, I can't explain the
> > difference between pci_rescan_remove_lock and pci_bus_sem, so I'm
> > confused, too. I added Lukas in case he has a ready explanation.
>
> pci_bus_sem is a global lock which protects the "devices" list of all
> pci_bus structs.
>
> We do have a bunch of places left where the "devices" list is accessed
> without holding pci_bus_sem, though I've tried to slowly eliminate
> them.
>
> pci_rescan_remove_lock is a global "big kernel lock" which serializes
> any device addition and removal.
>
> pci_rescan_remove_lock is known to be far too course-grained and thus
> deadlock-prone, particularly if hotplug ports are nested (as is the
> case with Thunderbolt). It needs to be split up into several smaller
> locks which protect e.g. allocation of resources of a bus (bus numbers
> or MMIO / IO space) and whatever else needs to be protected. It's just
> that nobody has gotten around to identify what exactly needs to be
> protected, adding the new locks and removing pci_rescan_remove_lock.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lukas
Thanks for the insights. So from that description I think it might make
sense to do this fix patch with the pci_rescan_remove_lock so it can be
backported. Then we can take the opportunity to add a lock specific to
the allocation/freeing of resources which would then replace at least
this new directly and clearly resource related use of
pci_rescan_remove_lock and potentially others we find.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Niklas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists