Re: [PATCH v7 07/10] tmp, tmp_tis: Implement usage counter for locality

[Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>]

On 01.07.22 01:29, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

>
> I'm kind of thinking that should tpm_tis_data have a lock for its
> contents?

Most of the tpm_tis_data structure elements are set once during init and
then never changed but only read. So no need for locking for these. The
exceptions I see are

- flags
- locality_count
- locality


whereby "flags" is accessed by atomic bit manipulating functions and thus
does not need extra locking. "locality_count" is protected by the locality_count_mutex.
"locality" is only set in check_locality() which is called from tpm_tis_request_locality_locked()
which holds the locality_count_mutex. So check_locality() is also protected by the locality_count_mutex
(which for this reason should probably rather be called locality_mutex since it protects both the "locality_count"
and the "locality" variable).

There is one other place check_locality() is called from, namely the interrupt handler. This is also the only
place in which "locality" could be assigned another value than 0 (aka the default). In this case there
is no lock, so this could indeed by racy.

The solution I see for this is:
1. remove the entire loop that checks for the current locality, i.e. this code:

	if (interrupt & TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT)
		for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
			if (check_locality(chip, i))
				break;

So we avoid "locality" from being changed to something that is not the default.


2. grab the locality_count_mutex and protect "locality":

if (interrupt & TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT)
	mutex_lock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
		for (i = 0; i < 5; i++)
			if (check_locality(chip, i))
				break;
	mutex_unlock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);


I dont see the reason why we should store which locality is the active one, since the only thing
that ever would change it from 0 (i.e. the default which we use) to something else is some external instance.

So I would vote for option 1.



>
> I kind of doubt that we would ever need more than one lock for it,
> and it would give some more ensurance to not be race, especially
> when re-enabling interrupts this feels important to be "extra safe".
>
> I looked at this commit, and did not see anything that would prevent
> using a spin lock instead of mutex. With a spin lock priv can be
> accessed also in the interrupt context.
>
> So instead prepend this patch with a patch that adds:
>
>         struct spin_lock lock;
>
> And something like:
>
>         static inline struct tpm_tis_data *tpm_tis_priv_get(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>         {
>                 struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
>
>                 spin_lock(&priv->lock);
>                 return priv;
>         }
>
>         static inline void tpm_tis_priv_put(struct tpm_tis_data *priv)
>         {
>                 spin_unlock(&priv->lock);
>         }
>
> And change the sites where priv is used to acquire the instance with this.
>

In this patch we need the mutex to protect the locality counter. We have to hold the mutex
while we do a register access that requires a locality (to make sure that the locality is not
released by another thread shortly before we do the access).

We cannot do the register access while holding a spinlock, since for SPI the (SPI) bus
lock mutex is used which needs a sleepable context. That is not given while holding a spinlock,
so I think we have no choice here unfortunately.

Regards,
Lino