[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230615050947.GA5053@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 07:09:47 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Joe Breuer <linux-kernel@...reuer.net>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
Linux Power Management <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Hardening <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
Linux SCSI <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@...i.sm>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Waking up from resume locks up on sr device
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 01:57:37PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > No. scsi_device_get just increments a reference count, and thus
> > prevents ->release from beeing called. ->remove is not in any way
> > affected by the refcount.
>
> What ->remove cb are you talking about ? The gendev one ?
The one for the device locked.
> I am trying to understand why the use of device_lock() helps in any way given
> that this is not used by any other functions in scsi. And given that
The device model locks the device before calling ->remove.
> scsi_rescan_device() should always be called with a ref on the scsi device (and
> so on the gendev as well) held, why would this function be racy with device remove ?
Because ->remove ould otherwise be called at the same time as ->rescan.
> Note that I did find a couple of places where scsi_rescan_device() seems to not
> be called with a reference to the scsi dev held, e.g. store_rescan_field() and
> store_state_field().
You need both a valid reference and ensure ->remove is not called at the
same time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists