linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: quiesce request queues before check pending cmds

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: <7ba3bbb8-a5c3-4ecd-9c2a-c9586c9d6bf2@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 06:33:03 -0600
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Ziqi Chen <quic_ziqichen@...cinc.com>, quic_cang@...cinc.com,
 mani@...nel.org, beanhuo@...ron.com, avri.altman@....com,
 junwoo80.lee@...sung.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
 quic_nguyenb@...cinc.com, quic_nitirawa@...cinc.com,
 quic_rampraka@...cinc.com
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
 "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Peter Wang <peter.wang@...iatek.com>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
 Maramaina Naresh <quic_mnaresh@...cinc.com>,
 Asutosh Das <quic_asutoshd@...cinc.com>,
 open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: core: quiesce request queues before check
 pending cmds

On 6/7/24 04:06, Ziqi Chen wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index 21429ee..1afa862 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1392,7 +1392,7 @@ static int ufshcd_clock_scaling_prepare(struct ufs_hba *hba, u64 timeout_us)
>   	 * make sure that there are no outstanding requests when
>   	 * clock scaling is in progress
>   	 */
> -	ufshcd_scsi_block_requests(hba);
> +	blk_mq_quiesce_tagset(&hba->host->tag_set);
>   	mutex_lock(&hba->wb_mutex);
>   	down_write(&hba->clk_scaling_lock);
>   
> @@ -1401,7 +1401,7 @@ static int ufshcd_clock_scaling_prepare(struct ufs_hba *hba, u64 timeout_us)
>   		ret = -EBUSY;
>   		up_write(&hba->clk_scaling_lock);
>   		mutex_unlock(&hba->wb_mutex);
> -		ufshcd_scsi_unblock_requests(hba);
> +		blk_mq_unquiesce_tagset(&hba->host->tag_set);
>   		goto out;
>   	}
>   
> @@ -1422,7 +1422,7 @@ static void ufshcd_clock_scaling_unprepare(struct ufs_hba *hba, int err, bool sc
>   
>   	mutex_unlock(&hba->wb_mutex);
>   
> -	ufshcd_scsi_unblock_requests(hba);
> +	blk_mq_unquiesce_tagset(&hba->host->tag_set);
>   	ufshcd_release(hba);
>   }

Why to replace only those ufshcd_scsi_block_requests() /
ufshcd_scsi_unblock_requests() calls? I don't think that it is ever safe to
use these functions instead of  blk_mq_quiesce_tagset() /
blk_mq_unquiesce_tagset(). Please replace all ufshcd_scsi_block_requests() /
ufshcd_scsi_unblock_requests() calls and remove the
ufshcd_scsi_*block_requests() functions.

Thanks,

Bart.