linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: move link

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]

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:30:57 -0700
From: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
CC: <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        "Dmitry Baryshkov" <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Sean Paul
	<sean@...rly.run>,
        "Marijn Suijten" <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        David
 Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Kuogee Hsieh
	<quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>,
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>, <quic_parellan@...cinc.com>,
        <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>, Rob Clark
	<robdclark@...omium.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: move link_ready out of HPD event thread



On 3/14/2024 8:38 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:24:08AM -0700, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 1:18 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 
>>> Right, but your proposed fix would not actually fix anything and judging
>>> from the sparse commit message and diff itself it is clearly only meant
>>> to mitigate the case where user space is involved, which is *not* the
>>> case here.
> 
>> There can be a race condition between the time the DP driver gets the
>> hpd disconnect event and when the hpd thread processes that event
>> allowing the commit to sneak in. This is something which has always been
>> there even without pm_runtime series and remains even today.
>>
>> In this race condition, the setting of "link_ready" to false can be a
>> bit delayed if we go through the HPD event processing increasing the
>> race condition window.
>>
>> If link_ready is false, atomic_check() fails, thereby failing any
>> commits and hence not allowing the atomic_disable() / atomic_enable()
>> cycle and hence avoiding this reset.
>>
>> The patch is moving the setting of link_ready to false earlier by not
>> putting it through the HPD event thread and hence trying to reduce the
>> window of the issue.
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing something in the race that you are trying to
> describe (and which I've asked you to describe in more detail so that I
> don't have to spend more time trying to come up with a reproducer
> myself).
> 

The race condition is between the time we get disconnect event and set 
link_ready to false, a commit can come in. Because setting link_ready to 
false happens in the event thread so it could be slightly delayed.

It will be hard to reproduce this. Only way I can think of is to delay 
the EV_NOTIFICATION for sometime and see in dp_bridge_hpd_notify()

         else if (dp_display->link_ready && status == 
connector_status_disconnected)
                 dp_add_event(dp, EV_HPD_UNPLUG_INT, 0, 0);

as dp_add_event() will add the event, then wakeup the event_q.

Before the event thread wakes up and processes this unplug event, the 
commit can come in. This is the race condition i was thinking of.

> I do understand how your patch works, but my point is that it does
> not fix the race that we are hitting on sc8280xp and, unless I'm missing
> something, it is not even sufficient to fix the race you are talking
> about as user space can still trigger that ioctl() before you clear the
> link_ready flag.
> 
> That's why I said that it is only papering over the issue by making the
> race window smaller (and this should also be highlighted in the commit
> message).
> 

Yes, I have already accepted this part. It only reduces the race window 
smaller.

> For some reason it also made things worse on sc8280xp, but I did not
> spend time on tracking down exactly why.
> 

This part I agree. I need to check why sc8280xp again does not like this 
patch. You dont have to spend time, I will do it and till then I will 
hold this patch off.

> Johan