Re: [PATCH net v4] nfc: ... device_is_registered() is data race-able

["Lin Ma" <linma@zju.edu.cn>]

Hello Greg,

> 
> It shouldn't be, if you are using it properly :)
> 
> [...]
> 
> Yes, you should almost never use that call.  Seems the nfc subsystem is
> the most common user of it for some reason :(

Cool, and I believe that the current nfc core code does not use it properly. :(

> 
> What state are you trying to track here exactly?
> 

Forget about the firmware downloading race that raised by Duoming in this channel,
all the netlink handler code in net/nfc/core.c depends on the device_is_registered
macro.

My idea is to introduce a patch like below:

 include/net/nfc/nfc.h |  1 +
 net/nfc/core.c        | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/net/nfc/nfc.h b/include/net/nfc/nfc.h
index 5dee575fbe86..d84e53802b06 100644
--- a/include/net/nfc/nfc.h
+++ b/include/net/nfc/nfc.h
@@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ struct nfc_dev {
 	int targets_generation;
 	struct device dev;
 	bool dev_up;
+	bool dev_register;
 	bool fw_download_in_progress;
 	u8 rf_mode;
 	bool polling;
diff --git a/net/nfc/core.c b/net/nfc/core.c
index dc7a2404efdf..208e6bb0804e 100644
--- a/net/nfc/core.c
+++ b/net/nfc/core.c
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ int nfc_fw_download(struct nfc_dev *dev, const char *firmware_name)
 
 	device_lock(&dev->dev);
 
-	if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
+	if (!dev->dev_register) {
 		rc = -ENODEV;
 		goto error;
 	}
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ int nfc_dev_up(struct nfc_dev *dev)
 
 	device_lock(&dev->dev);
 
-	if (!device_is_registered(&dev->dev)) {
+	if (!dev->dev_register) {
 		rc = -ENODEV;
 		goto error;
 	}

[...]

@@ -1134,6 +1134,7 @@ int nfc_register_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
 			dev->rfkill = NULL;
 		}
 	}
+	dev->dev_register = true;
 	device_unlock(&dev->dev);
 
 	rc = nfc_genl_device_added(dev);
@@ -1162,6 +1163,7 @@ void nfc_unregister_device(struct nfc_dev *dev)
 			 "was removed\n", dev_name(&dev->dev));
 
 	device_lock(&dev->dev);
+	dev->dev_register = false;
 	if (dev->rfkill) {
 		rfkill_unregister(dev->rfkill);
 		rfkill_destroy(dev->rfkill);
-- 
2.35.1

The added dev_register variable can function like the original device_is_registered and does not race-able
because of the protection of device_lock.

I think after such a patch is adopted, the reorder version of patch from Duoming 
-> https://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2022/04/25/10
can be used to fix the firmware downloading bug.

Do you agree on this or should we use another macro that is suitable than device_is_registered?

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Thanks
Lin