On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 18:04:09 +0100,
Chih-Yang Hsia wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 11:49 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:35:19 +0100,
> > Chih-Yang Hsia wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 1:00 AM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 17:37:54 +0100,
> > > > Chih-Yang Hsia wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:20 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:16:04 +0100,
> > > > > > Chih-Yang Hsia wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 7:36 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:47:51 +0100,
> > > > > > > > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:24:41 +0100,
> > > > > > > > > Chih-Yang Hsia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:16 AM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:17:13 +0100,
> > > > > > > > > > > paulhsia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > - snd_pcm_detach_substream sets runtime to null without stream lock and
> > > > > > > > > > > > - snd_pcm_period_elapsed checks the nullity of the runtime outside of
> > > > > > > > > > > > stream lock.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This will trigger null memory access in snd_pcm_running() call in
> > > > > > > > > > > > snd_pcm_period_elapsed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, if a stream is detached, it means that the stream must have been
> > > > > > > > > > > already closed; i.e. it's already a clear bug in the driver that
> > > > > > > > > > > snd_pcm_period_elapsed() is called against such a stream.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Or am I missing other possible case?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Takashi
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In multithreaded environment, it is possible to have to access both
> > > > > > > > > > `interrupt_handler` (from irq) and `substream close` (from
> > > > > > > > > > snd_pcm_release) at the same time.
> > > > > > > > > > Therefore, in driver implementation, if "substream close function" and
> > > > > > > > > > the "code section where snd_pcm_period_elapsed() in" do not hold the
> > > > > > > > > > same lock, then the following things can happen:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. interrupt_handler -> goes into snd_pcm_period_elapsed with a valid
> > > > > > > > > > sustream pointer
> > > > > > > > > > 2. snd_pcm_release_substream: call close without blocking
> > > > > > > > > > 3. snd_pcm_release_substream: call snd_pcm_detache_substream and set
> > > > > > > > > > substream->runtime to NULL
> > > > > > > > > > 4. interrupt_handler -> call snd_pcm_runtime() and crash while
> > > > > > > > > > accessing fields in `substream->runtime`
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > e.g. In intel8x0.c driver for ac97 device,
> > > > > > > > > > In driver intel8x0.c, `snd_pcm_period_elapsed` is called after
> > > > > > > > > > checking `ichdev->substream` in `snd_intel8x0_update`.
> > > > > > > > > > And if a `snd_pcm_release` call from alsa-lib and pass through close()
> > > > > > > > > > and run to snd_pcm_detach_substream() in another thread, it's possible
> > > > > > > > > > to trigger a crash.
> > > > > > > > > > I can reproduce the issue within a multithread VM easily.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My patches are trying to provide a basic protection for this situation
> > > > > > > > > > (and internal pcm lock between detach and elapsed), since
> > > > > > > > > > - the usage of `snd_pcm_period_elapsed` does not warn callers about
> > > > > > > > > > the possible race if the driver does not force the order for `calling
> > > > > > > > > > snd_pcm_period_elapsed` and `close` by lock and
> > > > > > > > > > - lots of drivers already have this hidden issue and I can't fix them
> > > > > > > > > > one by one (You can check the "snd_pcm_period_elapsed usage" and the
> > > > > > > > > > "close implementation" within all the drivers). The most common
> > > > > > > > > > mistake is that
> > > > > > > > > > - Checking if the substream is null and call into snd_pcm_period_elapsed
> > > > > > > > > > - But `close` can happen anytime, pass without block and
> > > > > > > > > > snd_pcm_detach_substream will be trigger right after it
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, point taken. While this argument is valid and it's good to
> > > > > > > > > harden the PCM core side, the concurrent calls are basically a bug,
> > > > > > > > > and we'd need another fix in anyway. Also, the patch 2 makes little
> > > > > > > > > sense; there can't be multiple close calls racing with each other. So
> > > > > > > > > I'll go for taking your fix but only the first patch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Back to this race: the surfaced issue is, as you pointed out, the race
> > > > > > > > > between snd_pcm_period_elapsed() vs close call. However, the
> > > > > > > > > fundamental problem is the pending action after the PCM trigger-stop
> > > > > > > > > call. Since the PCM trigger doesn't block nor wait until the hardware
> > > > > > > > > actually stops the things, the driver may go to the other step even
> > > > > > > > > after this "supposed-to-be-stopped" point. In your case, it goes up
> > > > > > > > > to close, and crashes. If we had a sync-stop operation, the interrupt
> > > > > > > > > handler should have finished before moving to the close stage, hence
> > > > > > > > > such a race could be avoided.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's been a long known problem, and some drivers have the own
> > > > > > > > > implementation for stop-sync. I think it's time to investigate and
> > > > > > > > > start implementing the fundamental solution.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BTW, what we need essentially for intel8x0 is to just call
> > > > > > > > synchronize_irq() before closing, at best in hw_free procedure:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- a/sound/pci/intel8x0.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/sound/pci/intel8x0.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -923,8 +923,10 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > static int snd_intel8x0_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > + struct intel8x0 *chip = snd_pcm_substream_chip(substream);
> > > > > > > > struct ichdev *ichdev = get_ichdev(substream);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + synchronize_irq(chip->irq);
> > > > > > > > if (ichdev->pcm_open_flag) {
> > > > > > > > snd_ac97_pcm_close(ichdev->pcm);
> > > > > > > > ichdev->pcm_open_flag = 0;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The same would be needed also at the beginning of the prepare, as the
> > > > > > > > application may restart the stream without release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My idea is to add sync_stop PCM ops and call it from PCM core at
> > > > > > > > snd_pcm_prepare() and snd_pcm_hw_free().
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Will adding synchronize_irq() in snd_pcm_hw_free there fix the race issue?
> > > > > > > Is it possible to have sequence like the following steps ?
> > > > > > > - [Thread 1] snd_pcm_hw_free: just pass synchronize_irq()
> > > > > > > - [Thread 2] another interrupt come -> snd_intel8x0_update() -> goes
> > > > > > > into the lock region of snd_pcm_period_elapsed() and passes the
> > > > > > > PCM_RUNTIME_CHECK (right before snd_pcm_running())
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This shouldn't happen because at the point snd_pcm_hw_free() the
> > > > > > stream has been already in the SETUP state, i.e. with trigger PCM
> > > > > > callback, the hardware has been programmed not to generate the PCM
> > > > > > stream IRQ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for pointing that out.
> > > > > snd_pcm_drop() will be called right before accessing `opts->hw_free`
> > > > > and device dma will be stopped by SNDRV_PCM_TRIGGER_STOP.
> > > > > And snd_pcm_prepare() will be called when the device is not running.
> > > > > So synchronize_irq() should be enough for both of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a patch like this now in intel8x0:
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/sound/pci/intel8x0.c b/sound/pci/intel8x0.c
> > > > > index 6ff94d8ad86e..728588937673 100644
> > > > > --- a/sound/pci/intel8x0.c
> > > > > +++ b/sound/pci/intel8x0.c
> > > > > @@ -923,8 +923,10 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_hw_params(struct
> > > > > snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> > > > >
> > > > > static int snd_intel8x0_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > > > > {
> > > > > + struct intel8x0 *chip = snd_pcm_substream_chip(substream);
> > > > > struct ichdev *ichdev = get_ichdev(substream);
> > > > >
> > > > > + synchronize_irq(chip->irq);
> > > > > if (ichdev->pcm_open_flag) {
> > > > > snd_ac97_pcm_close(ichdev->pcm);
> > > > > ichdev->pcm_open_flag = 0;
> > > > > @@ -993,6 +995,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_pcm_prepare(struct
> > > > > snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > > > > struct snd_pcm_runtime *runtime = substream->runtime;
> > > > > struct ichdev *ichdev = get_ichdev(substream);
> > > > >
> > > > > + synchronize_irq(chip->irq);
> > > > > ichdev->physbuf = runtime->dma_addr;
> > > > > ichdev->size = snd_pcm_lib_buffer_bytes(substream);
> > > > > ichdev->fragsize = snd_pcm_lib_period_bytes(substream);
> > > > >
> > > > > If that looks good to you, I can upload the patch to pw as well.
> > > > > Then we can upstream the intel8x0 patch and the first change I made in
> > > > > this series (the elapse one).
> > > > > Does that sound good to you?
> > > >
> > > > I already have a patch set that adds the irq-sync commonly, as this
> > > > problem is seen on various drivers as you already pointed.
> > > >
> > > > Below two patches add the support in PCM core side, and the rest need in
> > > > intel8x0.c is something like:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/sound/pci/intel8x0.c
> > > > +++ b/sound/pci/intel8x0.c
> > > > @@ -3092,6 +3092,7 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_create(struct snd_card *card,
> > > > return -EBUSY;
> > > > }
> > > > chip->irq = pci->irq;
> > > > + card->sync_irq = chip->irq;
> > > >
> > > Will this assignment or removement cause possible race if the driver
> > > is careless?
> >
> > Not really, it just influences on the possible synchronize_irq() call,
> > and the call itself can't be so racy. So it's basically safe to set
> > and clear at any time.
> Got it. I'm not that familiar with that function.
> >
> > > Maybe providing some helper functions or teaching driver writers when
> > > is the right time to change or remove the sync_irq will help.
> >
> > The assumption is to set this whenever an irq handler is requested or
> > freed. I don't mind introducing an API function
> > (e.g. snd_card_set_sync_irq(card, irq)), but OTOH I don't see much
> > benefit by that, either. This is no mandatory thing, you can
> > implement in the driver side in different ways, too...
> >
> Thanks for your clarification. I think both ways would be fine.
>
> Let me wait for your patches and add the fix for intel8x0 based on it later?
> CC me anytime when you're ready.
I have already queued the fixes for all PCI and ISA drivers on my
local tree. They need a bit more cooking to adjust with other tons of
patches (there are a lot of other PCM enhancement / cleanup patches at
this time), but they'll be ready after 5.5-rc1. So stay tuned :)
thanks,
Takashi
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
