mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Xiang Zheng <zhengxiang9@huawei.com>
Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, willy@infradead.org,
	wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com,
	guoheyi@huawei.com, yebiaoxiang@huawei.com,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	rjw@rjwysocki.net, tglx@linutronix.de, guohanjun@huawei.com,
	yangyingliang@huawei.com, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Lock the pci_cfg_wait queue for the consistency of data
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 18:23:03 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200624232303.GA2594945@bjorn-Precision-5520> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191210031527.40136-1-zhengxiang9@huawei.com>

[+cc Stephane]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:15:27AM +0800, Xiang Zheng wrote:
> 7ea7e98fd8d0 ("PCI: Block on access to temporarily unavailable pci
> device") suggests that the "pci_lock" is sufficient, and all the
> callers of pci_wait_cfg() are wrapped with the "pci_lock".
> 
> However, since the commit cdcb33f98244 ("PCI: Avoid possible deadlock on
> pci_lock and p->pi_lock") merged, the accesses to the pci_cfg_wait queue
> are not safe anymore. This would cause kernel panic in a very low chance
> (See more detailed information from the below link). A "pci_lock" is
> insufficient and we need to hold an additional queue lock while read/write
> the wait queue.

<tangent>

  I'm not proud of cdcb33f98244 ("PCI: Avoid possible deadlock on
  pci_lock and p->pi_lock").

  It seems like an ad hoc solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.
  I think what it fixes is reading performance counters from PCI
  config space during a context switch when we're holding the
  task_struct pi_lock.  That doesn't seem like a path that should
  acquire pci_lock.

  I think I should have instead tried to make a lockless PCI config
  accessor that returns failure whenever we aren't allowed to read
  config space, e.g., during the recovery time after a reset or power
  state transition.  We currently *do* use pci_cfg_access_lock() to
  prevent user accesses via /proc or /sys during some of those times,
  but there's nothing that prevents kernel accesses.

  I think we're a little vulnerable there if we read those PCI
  performance counters right after changing the device power state.
  Hopefully it's nothing worse than getting ~0 data back.

</tangent>

> So let's use the add_wait_queue()/remove_wait_queue() instead of
> __add_wait_queue()/__remove_wait_queue(). Also move the wait queue
> functionality around the "schedule()" function to avoid reintroducing
> the deadlock addressed by "cdcb33f98244".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiang Zheng <zhengxiang9@huawei.com>
> Cc: Heyi Guo <guoheyi@huawei.com>
> Cc: Biaoxiang Ye <yebiaoxiang@huawei.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/79827f2f-9b43-4411-1376-b9063b67aee3@huawei.com/
> ---
> 
> v3:
>   Improve the commit subject and message.
> 
> v2:
>   Move the wait queue functionality around the "schedule()".
> 
> ---
>  drivers/pci/access.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/access.c b/drivers/pci/access.c
> index 2fccb5762c76..09342a74e5ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/access.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/access.c
> @@ -207,14 +207,14 @@ static noinline void pci_wait_cfg(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  {
>  	DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
>  
> -	__add_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait);
>  	do {
>  		set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pci_lock);
> +		add_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait);
>  		schedule();
> +		remove_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait);
>  		raw_spin_lock_irq(&pci_lock);
>  	} while (dev->block_cfg_access);
> -	__remove_wait_queue(&pci_cfg_wait, &wait);
>  }
>  
>  /* Returns 0 on success, negative values indicate error. */
> -- 
> 2.19.1
> 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-24 23:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-10  3:15 Xiang Zheng
2020-06-24 23:23 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2020-06-24 23:23 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-06-25 23:24   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-06-28  4:18     ` Xiang Zheng
2020-06-28 16:14       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-07-02  9:41         ` Xiang Zheng
2020-06-28  4:17   ` Xiang Zheng

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=20200624232303.GA2594945@bjorn-Precision-5520 \
    --to=helgaas@kernel.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=eranian@google.com \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=guoheyi@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com \
    --cc=wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=yangyingliang@huawei.com \
    --cc=yebiaoxiang@huawei.com \
    --cc=zhengxiang9@huawei.com \
    /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®