netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 12/13] net: wwan: t7xx: Device deep sleep lock/unlock

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:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 16:49:38 -0700
From:   "Martinez, Ricardo" <ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, johannes@...solutions.net,
        ryazanov.s.a@...il.com, loic.poulain@...aro.org,
        m.chetan.kumar@...el.com, chandrashekar.devegowda@...el.com,
        linuxwwan@...el.com, chiranjeevi.rapolu@...ux.intel.com,
        haijun.liu@...iatek.com, amir.hanania@...el.com,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        dinesh.sharma@...el.com, eliot.lee@...el.com,
        moises.veleta@...el.com, pierre-louis.bossart@...el.com,
        muralidharan.sethuraman@...el.com, Soumya.Prakash.Mishra@...el.com,
        sreehari.kancharla@...el.com, madhusmita.sahu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 12/13] net: wwan: t7xx: Device deep sleep
 lock/unlock


On 3/10/2022 2:21 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022, Ricardo Martinez wrote:
>
>> From: Haijun Liu <haijun.liu@...iatek.com>
>>
>> Introduce the mechanism to lock/unlock the device 'deep sleep' mode.
>> When the PCIe link state is L1.2 or L2, the host side still can keep
>> the device is in D0 state from the host side point of view. At the same
>> time, if the device's 'deep sleep' mode is unlocked, the device will
>> go to 'deep sleep' while it is still in D0 state on the host side.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Haijun Liu <haijun.liu@...iatek.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chandrashekar Devegowda <chandrashekar.devegowda@...el.com>
>> Co-developed-by: Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
...
>> +int t7xx_pci_sleep_disable_complete(struct t7xx_pci_dev *t7xx_dev)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = &t7xx_dev->pdev->dev;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&t7xx_dev->sleep_lock_acquire,
>> +					  msecs_to_jiffies(PM_SLEEP_DIS_TIMEOUT_MS));
>> +	if (!ret)
>> +		dev_err_ratelimited(dev, "Resource wait complete timed out\n");
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * t7xx_pci_disable_sleep() - Disable deep sleep capability.
>> + * @t7xx_dev: MTK device.
>> + *
>> + * Lock the deep sleep capability, note that the device can still go into deep sleep
>> + * state while device is in D0 state, from the host's point-of-view.
>> + *
>> + * If device is in deep sleep state, wake up the device and disable deep sleep capability.
>> + */
>> +void t7xx_pci_disable_sleep(struct t7xx_pci_dev *t7xx_dev)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> +	if (atomic_read(&t7xx_dev->md_pm_state) < MTK_PM_RESUMED) {
>> +		atomic_inc(&t7xx_dev->sleep_disable_count);
>> +		complete_all(&t7xx_dev->sleep_lock_acquire);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&t7xx_dev->md_pm_lock, flags);
>> +	if (atomic_inc_return(&t7xx_dev->sleep_disable_count) == 1) {
>> +		u32 deep_sleep_enabled;
>> +
>> +		reinit_completion(&t7xx_dev->sleep_lock_acquire);
> You might want to check that there's a mechanism that prevents this
> racing with wait_for_completion_timeout() in t7xx_pci_sleep_disable_complete().
>
> I couldn't prove it myself but there are probably aspect in the PM side of
> things I wasn't able to take fully into account (that is, which call
> paths are not possible to occur).
Those functions are called in the following order:
1.- t7xx_pci_disable_sleep()
2.- t7xx_pci_sleep_disable_complete()
3.- t7xx_pci_enable_sleep()

That sequence and md_pm_lock protect against a race condition between 
wait_for_completion_timeout() and  reinit_completion().
On the other hand, there could be a race condition between 
t7xx_pci_disable_sleep() and t7xx_pci_enable_sleep() which may cause 
sleep to get enabled while one thread expects it to be disabled.
The fix would be to protect sleep_disable_count with md_pm_lock, then 
sleep_disable_count doesn't need to be declared as atomic.
The next version will include cleanup in this area.
>> +		t7xx_dev_set_sleep_capability(t7xx_dev, false);
>> +
>> +		deep_sleep_enabled = ioread32(IREG_BASE(t7xx_dev) + T7XX_PCIE_RESOURCE_STATUS);
>> +		deep_sleep_enabled &= T7XX_PCIE_RESOURCE_STS_MSK;
>> +		if (deep_sleep_enabled) {
>> +			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7xx_dev->md_pm_lock, flags);
>> +			complete_all(&t7xx_dev->sleep_lock_acquire);
>> +			return;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		t7xx_mhccif_h2d_swint_trigger(t7xx_dev, H2D_CH_DS_LOCK);
>> +	}
>> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&t7xx_dev->md_pm_lock, flags);
>> +}
>