| 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: <8742e128-3ac8-aa56-0596-037c38e05089@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 21:22:38 +0800
From: yangxingui <yangxingui@...wei.com>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, <yanaijie@...wei.com>,
<jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
<damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
CC: <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxarm@...wei.com>, <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
<chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>, <kangfenglong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] scsi: libsas: Fix the failure of adding phy with
zero-address to port
Hi, John
On 2023/12/5 2:05, John Garry wrote:
> On 04/12/2023 12:29, Xingui Yang wrote:
>> When the expander device which attached many SATA disks is connected to
>> the host, first disable and then enable the local phy. The following
>> BUG()
>> will be triggered with a small probability:
>>
>> [562240.051046] sas: phy19 part of wide port with phy16
>
> Please use code from latest kernel. This again seems to be the old
> comment format.
Ok.
>
>> [562240.051197] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy19:U:0 attached:
>> 0000000000000000 (no device)
>
> The log at 562240.051046 tells that phy19 formed a wideport with phy16,
> but then here we see that phy19 has attached SAS address 0. How did we
> form a wideport with a phy with sas address 0? Sorry if I asked this
> before, but I looked through the thread and it is not clear.
Ok, the early address of phy19 is not 0, and forms a wide port with
phy16. But now phy19 has been unregistered and the sas address of phy19
is set to 0.
>
>> [562240.051203] sas: done REVALIDATING DOMAIN on port 0, pid:435909,
>> res 0x0
>> <...>
>> [562240.062536] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy0 new device attached
>> [562240.062616] sas: ex 500e004aaaaaaa1f phy00:U:5 attached:
>> 0000000000000000 (stp)
>> [562240.062680] port-7:7:0: trying to add phy phy-7:7:19 fails: it's
>> already part of another port
>> [562240.085064] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [562240.096612] kernel BUG at drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_sas.c:1083!
>> [562240.109611] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] SMP
>> [562240.343518] Process kworker/u256:3 (pid: 435909, stack limit =
>> 0x0000000003bcbebf)
>> [562240.421714] Workqueue: 0000:b4:02.0_disco_q sas_revalidate_domain
>> [libsas]
>> [562240.437173] pstate: 40c00009 (nZcv daif +PAN +UAO)
>> [562240.450478] pc : sas_port_add_phy+0x13c/0x168 [scsi_transport_sas]
>> [562240.465283] lr : sas_port_add_phy+0x13c/0x168 [scsi_transport_sas]
>> [562240.479751] sp : ffff0000300cfa70
>> [562240.674822] Call trace:
>> [562240.682709] sas_port_add_phy+0x13c/0x168 [scsi_transport_sas]
>> [562240.694013] sas_ex_get_linkrate.isra.5+0xcc/0x128 [libsas]
>> [562240.704957] sas_ex_discover_end_dev+0xfc/0x538 [libsas]
>> [562240.715508] sas_ex_discover_dev+0x3cc/0x4b8 [libsas]
>> [562240.725634] sas_ex_discover_devices+0x9c/0x1a8 [libsas]
>> [562240.735855] sas_ex_revalidate_domain+0x2f0/0x450 [libsas]
>> [562240.746123] sas_revalidate_domain+0x158/0x160 [libsas]
>> [562240.756014] process_one_work+0x1b4/0x448
>> [562240.764548] worker_thread+0x54/0x468
>> [562240.772562] kthread+0x134/0x138
>> [562240.779989] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>>
>> What causes this problem:
>> 1. For phy19, when the phy is attached and added to the parent wide port,
>> the path is:
>> sas_rediscover()
>> ->sas_discover_new()
>> ->sas_ex_discover_devices()
>> ->sas_ex_discover_dev()
>> -> sas_add_parent_port()
>>
>> ex_phy->port was not set and when it is removed from parent wide port the
>> path is:
>> sas_rediscover()
>> ->sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr()
>
>
> Sorry, but that is not a callpath. Maybe you condensed it. Please expand
> it.
Ok.
>
>>
>> Then the sas address of phy19 becomes 0, and since ex_phy->port is NULL,
>> phy19 was not removed from the parent wide port's phy_list.
>>
>> 2. For phy0, it is connected to a new sata device and the path is:
>> sas_rediscover()
>> ->sas_discover_new()->sas_ex_phy_discover()
>> ->sas_ex_phy_discover_helper()
>> ->sas_set_ex_phy()
>> ->sas_ex_discover_devices()
>> ->sas_ex_discover_dev()
>> ->sas_ex_discover_end_dev()
>> ->sas_port_alloc() // Create
>> port-7:7:0
>> ->sas_ex_get_linkrate()
>> ->sas_port_add_phy()
>>
>> The type of the newly connected device is stp, but the linkrate is 5
>> which
>> less than 1.5G, then the sas address is set to 0 in sas_set_ex_phy().
>
> I don't understand why we do anything when in this state. linkrate == 5
> means phy reset in progress. Can we just bail out until the SATA phy is
> in a decent shape? I assume that when the SATA phy is in "up" state that
> we get a broadcast event and can re-evaluate.
You are saying that we use a method similar to SAS_SATA_SPINUP_HOLD?
>
>> Subsequently, a new port port-7:7:0 was created and tried to add phy19
>> with
>> the same zero-address to this new port. However, phy19 still belongs to
>> another port, then a BUG() was triggered in sas_ex_get_linkrate().
>>
>> Fix the problem as follows:
>> 1. Use sas_port_add_ex_phy() instead of sas_port_add_phy() when ex_phy is
>> added to the parent port.
>
> this seems ok
>
>>
>> 2. Set ex_dev->parent_port to NULL when the number of phy on the port
>> becomes 0.
>>
>> 3. When phy->attached_dev_type != NO_DEVICE, do not set the zero address
>> for phy->attached_sas_addr.
>>
>> Fixes: 2908d778ab3e ("[SCSI] aic94xx: new driver")
>> Fixes: 7d1d86518118 ("[SCSI] libsas: fix false positive 'device
>> attached' conditions")
>> Signed-off-by: Xingui Yang <yangxingui@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c | 10 ++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>> b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>> index 7aa968b85e1e..9152152d5e10 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/libsas/sas_expander.c
>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static void sas_add_parent_port(struct domain_device
>> *dev, int phy_id)
>> BUG_ON(sas_port_add(ex->parent_port));
>> sas_port_mark_backlink(ex->parent_port);
>> }
>> - sas_port_add_phy(ex->parent_port, ex_phy->phy);
>> + sas_port_add_ex_phy(ex->parent_port, ex_phy);
>> }
>> /* ---------- SMP task management ---------- */
>> @@ -261,8 +261,7 @@ static void sas_set_ex_phy(struct domain_device
>> *dev, int phy_id,
>> /* help some expanders that fail to zero sas_address in the 'no
>> * device' case
>> */
>
> Please pay attention to this comment. It seems that some expanders
> require us to explicitly zero the SAS address.
Yes, we have reviewed this point, and its modification is for some
expanders to report that the sas address isn't zero in the "no device"
case. The current modification does not affect its original problem fix,
we just removed its linkrate judgment.
>
>> - if (phy->attached_dev_type == SAS_PHY_UNUSED ||
>> - phy->linkrate < SAS_LINK_RATE_1_5_GBPS)
>> + if (phy->attached_dev_type == SAS_PHY_UNUSED)
>> memset(phy->attached_sas_addr, 0, SAS_ADDR_SIZE);
>> else
>> memcpy(phy->attached_sas_addr, dr->attached_sas_addr,
>> SAS_ADDR_SIZE);
>> @@ -1864,9 +1863,12 @@ static void sas_unregister_devs_sas_addr(struct
>> domain_device *parent,
>> if (phy->port) {
>> sas_port_delete_phy(phy->port, phy->phy);
>> sas_device_set_phy(found, phy->port);
>> - if (phy->port->num_phys == 0)
>> + if (phy->port->num_phys == 0) {
>> list_add_tail(&phy->port->del_list,
>> &parent->port->sas_port_del_list);
>> + if (ex_dev->parent_port == phy->port)
>> + ex_dev->parent_port = NULL;
>
> This does not feel like the right place to do this. So the port which we
> queue to free is the ex_dev->parent_port, right?
Yes, we found that if ex_dev->parent_port is not set to NULL, after the
port is released, if there is a new ex_phy connection, use-after-free
problems will occur. And the current branch is to determine whether the
number of phys on the port is 0. I think it is more appropriate to set
parent_port. Do you have any better suggestions?
>
> BTW, do you know why it's called ex_dev->parent_port and not
> ex_dev->port? I find the name parent_port confusing...
It is the port connected to the upper-level device, so named parent_port.
Thanks,
Xingui
Powered by blists - more mailing lists