netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 03/14] net: phylink: add support for PCS link change notifications

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: <ZbAqK+RbuJZ6d4tK@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 21:05:47 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
Cc: Landen.Chao@...iatek.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
	alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, andrew@...n.ch,
	angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com, arinc.unal@...nc9.com,
	claudiu.manoil@....com, daniel@...rotopia.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	dqfext@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
	hkallweit1@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, olteanv@...il.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
	sean.wang@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 03/14] net: phylink: add support for PCS
 link change notifications

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:33:57PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 1/23/24 15:07, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 02:46:15PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> >> Hi Russell,
> >> 
> >> Does there need to be any locking when calling phylink_pcs_change? I
> >> noticed that you call it from threaded IRQ context in [1]. Can that race
> >> with phylink_major_config?
> > 
> > What kind of scenario are you thinking may require locking?
> 
> Can't we at least get a spurious bounce? E.g.
> 
> pcs_major_config()
>   pcs_disable(old_pcs) /* masks IRQ */
>   old_pcs->phylink = NULL;
>   new_pcs->phylink = pl;
>   ...
>   pcs_enable(new_pcs) /* unmasks IRQ */
>   ...
> 
> pcs_handle_irq(new_pcs) /* Link up IRQ */
>   phylink_pcs_change(new_pcs, true)
>     phylink_run_resolve(pl)
> 
> phylink_resolve(pl)
>   /* Link up */

By this time, old_pcs->phylink has been set to NULL as you mentioned
above.

> pcs_handle_irq(old_pcs) /* Link down IRQ (pending from before pcs_disable) */
>   phylink_pcs_change(old_pcs, false)
>     phylink_run_resolve(pl) /* Doesn't see the NULL */

So here, phylink_pcs_change(old_pcs, ...) will read old_pcs->phylink and
find that it's NULL, and do nothing.

> > I guess the possibility would be if pcs->phylink changes and the
> > compiler reads it multiple times - READ_ONCE() should solve that.
> > 
> > However, in terms of the mechanics, there's no race.
> > 
> > During the initial bringup, the resolve worker isn't started until
> > after phylink_major_config() has completed (it's started at
> > phylink_enable_and_run_resolve().) So, if phylink_pcs_change()
> > gets called while in phylink_major_config() there, it'll see
> > that pl->phylink_disable_state is non-zero, and won't queue the
> > work.
> > 
> > The next one is within the worker itself - and there can only
> > be one instance of the worker running in totality. So, if
> > phylink_pcs_change() gets called while phylink_major_config() is
> > running from this path, the only thing it'll do is re-schedule
> > the resolve worker to run another iteration which is harmless
> > (whether or not the PCS is still current.)
> > 
> > The last case is phylink_ethtool_ksettings_set(). This runs under
> > the state_mutex, which locks out the resolve worker (since it also
> > takes that mutex).
> > 
> > So calling phylink_pcs_change() should be pretty harmless _unless_
> > the compiler re-reads pcs->phylink multiple times inside
> > phylink_pcs_change(), which I suppose with modern compilers is
> > possible. Hence my suggestion above about READ_ONCE() for that.
> > 
> > Have you encountered an OOPS because pcs->phylink has become NULL?
> > Or have you spotted another issue?
> 
> I was looking at extending this code, and I was wondering if I needed
> to e.g. take RTNL first. Thanks for the quick response.

Note that phylink_mac_change() gets called in irq context, so this
stuff can't take any mutexes or the rtnl. It is also intended that
phylink_pcs_change() is similarly callable in irq context.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!