From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ACPI: scan: Fix device object rescan in acpi_scan_clear_dep()
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:48:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0cd3a0b5-f656-2b4f-b5bc-67680bc80603@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7272740.EvYhyI6sBW@kreacher>
Hi,
On 6/16/21 4:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> In general, acpi_bus_attach() can only be run safely under
> acpi_scan_lock, but that lock cannot be acquired under
> acpi_dep_list_lock, so make acpi_scan_clear_dep() schedule deferred
> execution of acpi_bus_attach() under acpi_scan_lock instead of
> calling it directly.
>
> This also fixes a possible race between acpi_scan_clear_dep() and
> device removal that might cause a device object that went away to
> be accessed, because acpi_scan_clear_dep() is changed to acquire
> a reference on the consumer device object.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -2115,16 +2115,56 @@ static int acpi_dev_get_first_consumer_d
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int acpi_scan_clear_dep(struct acpi_dep_data *dep, void *data)
> -{
> +struct acpi_scan_clear_dep_work {
> + struct work_struct work;
> struct acpi_device *adev;
> +};
> +
> +static void acpi_scan_clear_dep_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct acpi_scan_clear_dep_work *cdw;
> +
> + cdw = container_of(work, struct acpi_scan_clear_dep_work, work);
>
> - acpi_bus_get_device(dep->consumer, &adev);
> + acpi_scan_lock_acquire();
> + acpi_bus_attach(cdw->adev, true);
> + acpi_scan_lock_release();
> +
> + acpi_dev_put(cdw->adev);
> + kfree(cdw);
> +}
> +
> +static bool acpi_scan_clear_dep_queue(struct acpi_device *adev)
> +{
> + struct acpi_scan_clear_dep_work *cdw;
> +
> + if (adev->dep_unmet)
> + return false;
> +
> + cdw = kmalloc(sizeof(*cdw), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cdw)
> + return false;
> +
> + cdw->adev = adev;
> + INIT_WORK(&cdw->work, acpi_scan_clear_dep_fn);
> + /*
> + * Since the work function may block on the lock until the entire
> + * initial enumeration of devices is complete, put it into the unbound
> + * workqueue.
> + */
> + queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &cdw->work);
Hmm, I'm a bit worried about this. Even with the system_unbound_wq
some code may expect at least some progress being made with processing
works during the initial enumeration. OTOH this does run pretty early on.
Still I wonder if it would not be better to create + use our own workqueue
for this ?
I guess we can always do this if we run into issues later...
With that said / otherwise the patch looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Regards,
Hans
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static int acpi_scan_clear_dep(struct acpi_dep_data *dep, void *data)
> +{
> + struct acpi_device *adev = acpi_bus_get_acpi_device(dep->consumer);
>
> if (adev) {
> adev->dep_unmet--;
> - if (!adev->dep_unmet)
> - acpi_bus_attach(adev, true);
> + if (!acpi_scan_clear_dep_queue(adev))
> + acpi_dev_put(adev);
> }
>
> list_del(&dep->node);
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-16 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-16 14:21 [PATCH 0/5] ACPI: scan: Fixes and cleanups related to dependencies list handling Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 14:21 ` [PATCH 1/5] ACPI: scan: Rearrange acpi_dev_get_first_consumer_dev_cb() Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 14:36 ` Hans de Goede
2021-06-16 14:22 ` [PATCH 2/5] ACPI: scan: Make acpi_walk_dep_device_list() Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 14:41 ` Hans de Goede
2021-06-16 15:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 15:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 15:28 ` Hans de Goede
2021-06-16 14:23 ` [PATCH 3/5] ACPI: scan: Fix device object rescan in acpi_scan_clear_dep() Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 14:48 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
2021-06-16 15:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 14:24 ` [PATCH 4/5] ACPI: scan: Reorganize acpi_device_add() Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 14:49 ` Hans de Goede
2021-06-16 14:25 ` [PATCH 5/5] ACPI: scan: Fix race related to dropping dependencies Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 14:55 ` Hans de Goede
2021-06-16 15:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 18:00 ` [PATCH v2 " Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-16 18:04 ` Hans de Goede
2021-06-17 0:25 ` [PATCH " kernel test robot
2021-06-17 0:41 ` kernel test robot
2021-06-17 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH] ACPI: scan: __acpi_device_add() can be static kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0cd3a0b5-f656-2b4f-b5bc-67680bc80603@redhat.com \
--to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®