linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] fpga: set owner of fpga_manager

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: <a0925c7e-001b-4b8d-9da1-6b271e2f8434@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 23:24:20 +0100
From: Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>,
 Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] fpga: set owner of fpga_manager_ops for
 existing low-level modules



On 19/12/23 19:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 06:17:20PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-12-19 16:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 03:54:25PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-12-18 21:33, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 09:28:09PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote:
>>>>>> This patch tentatively set the owner field of fpga_manager_ops to
>>>>>> THIS_MODULE for existing fpga manager low-level control modules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Pagani <marpagan@...hat.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/altera-cvp.c             | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/altera-pr-ip-core.c      | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/altera-ps-spi.c          | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-mgr.c            | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/ice40-spi.c              | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/lattice-sysconfig.c      | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/machxo2-spi.c            | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/microchip-spi.c          | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/socfpga-a10.c            | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/socfpga.c                | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c          | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/tests/fpga-mgr-test.c    | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/tests/fpga-region-test.c | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/ts73xx-fpga.c            | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/versal-fpga.c            | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/xilinx-spi.c             | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/zynq-fpga.c              | 1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/fpga/zynqmp-fpga.c            | 1 +
>>>>>>  18 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/altera-cvp.c b/drivers/fpga/altera-cvp.c
>>>>>> index 4ffb9da537d8..aeb913547dd8 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/fpga/altera-cvp.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/fpga/altera-cvp.c
>>>>>> @@ -520,6 +520,7 @@ static const struct fpga_manager_ops altera_cvp_ops = {
>>>>>>  	.write_init	= altera_cvp_write_init,
>>>>>>  	.write		= altera_cvp_write,
>>>>>>  	.write_complete	= altera_cvp_write_complete,
>>>>>> +	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, this is not how to do this, force the compiler to set this for you
>>>>> automatically, otherwise everyone will always forget to do it.  Look at
>>>>> how functions like usb_register_driver() works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, are you _sure_ that you need a module owner in this structure?  I
>>>>> still don't know why...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean moving the module owner field to the manager context and setting
>>>> it during registration with a helper macro?
>>>
>>> I mean set it during registration with a helper macro.
>>>
>>>> Something like:
>>>>
>>>> struct fpga_manager {
>>>> 	...
>>>> 	struct module *owner;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> #define fpga_mgr_register(parent, ...) \
>>>> 	__fpga_mgr_register(parent,..., THIS_MODULE)
>>>>
>>>> struct fpga_manager *
>>>> __fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, ..., struct module *owner)
>>>> {
>>>> 	...
>>>> 	mgr->owner = owner;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> But again, is a module owner even needed?  I don't think you all have
>>> proven that yet...
>>
>> Programming an FPGA involves a potentially lengthy sequence of interactions
>> with the reconfiguration engine. The manager conceptually organizes these
>> interactions as a sequence of ops. Low-level modules implement these ops/steps
>> for a specific device. If we don't protect the low-level module, someone might
>> unload it right when we are in the middle of a low-level op programming the
>> FPGA. As far as I know, the kernel would crash in that case.
> 
> The only way an unload of a module can happen is if a user explicitly
> asks for it to be unloaded.  So they get what they ask for, right?
>

Right, the user should get what he asked for, including hanging the
hardware. My only concern is that the kernel should not crash.

> How do you "know" it is active?  And why doesn't the normal
> "driver/device" bindings prevent unloading from being a problem?  When
> you unload a module, you stop all ops on the driver, and then unregister
> it, which causes any future ones to fail.
> 
> Or am I missing something here?
>
 
I think the problem is that the ops are not directly tied to the driver
of the manager's parent device. It is not even required to have a driver
to register a manager. The only way to know if the fpga manager is
active (i.e., someone is running one op) is by poking manager->state.

One possibility that comes into my mind, excluding a major reworking,
is waiting in fpga_mgr_unregister() until the manager reaches a steady
state (no ops are running) before unregistering the device. However, it
feels questionable because if one of the ops hangs, the module removal
will also hang.

Thanks,
Marco