> From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Wysocki > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:33 AM > > On Thursday, July 25, 2013 01:12:38 PM Corey Minyard wrote: > > On 07/25/2013 07:06 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2013 03:09:35 AM Zheng, Lv wrote: > > >> -stable according to the previous conversation. > > >> > > >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@xxxxxxx] > > >>> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:38 AM > > >>> > > >>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 04:09:15 PM Lv Zheng wrote: > > >>>> This patch fixes races caused by unprotected ACPI IPMI transfers. > > >>>> > > >>>> We can see the following crashes may occur: > > >>>> 1. There is no tx_msg_lock held for iterating tx_msg_list in > > >>>> ipmi_flush_tx_msg() while it is parellel unlinked on failure in > > >>>> acpi_ipmi_space_handler() under protection of tx_msg_lock. > > >>>> 2. There is no lock held for freeing tx_msg in acpi_ipmi_space_handler() > > >>>> while it is parellel accessed in ipmi_flush_tx_msg() and > > >>>> ipmi_msg_handler(). > > >>>> > > >>>> This patch enhances tx_msg_lock to protect all tx_msg accesses to > > >>>> solve this issue. Then tx_msg_lock is always held around > > >>>> complete() and tx_msg accesses. > > >>>> Calling smp_wmb() before setting msg_done flag so that messages > > >>>> completed due to flushing will not be handled as 'done' messages > > >>>> while their contents are not vaild. > > >>>> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> Cc: Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> Reviewed-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c | 10 ++++++++-- > > >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > >>>> > > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c > > >>>> index > > >>>> b37c189..527ee43 100644 > > >>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c > > >>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c > > >>>> @@ -230,11 +230,14 @@ static void ipmi_flush_tx_msg(struct > > >>> acpi_ipmi_device *ipmi) > > >>>> struct acpi_ipmi_msg *tx_msg, *temp; > > >>>> int count = HZ / 10; > > >>>> struct pnp_dev *pnp_dev = ipmi->pnp_dev; > > >>>> + unsigned long flags; > > >>>> > > >>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ipmi->tx_msg_lock, flags); > > >>>> list_for_each_entry_safe(tx_msg, temp, &ipmi->tx_msg_list, > head) { > > >>>> /* wake up the sleep thread on the Tx msg */ > > >>>> complete(&tx_msg->tx_complete); > > >>>> } > > >>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ipmi->tx_msg_lock, flags); > > >>>> > > >>>> /* wait for about 100ms to flush the tx message list */ > > >>>> while (count--) { > > >>>> @@ -268,13 +271,12 @@ static void ipmi_msg_handler(struct > > >>> ipmi_recv_msg *msg, void *user_msg_data) > > >>>> break; > > >>>> } > > >>>> } > > >>>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ipmi_device->tx_msg_lock, flags); > > >>>> > > >>>> if (!msg_found) { > > >>>> dev_warn(&pnp_dev->dev, > > >>>> "Unexpected response (msg id %ld) is returned.\n", > > >>>> msg->msgid); > > >>>> - goto out_msg; > > >>>> + goto out_lock; > > >>>> } > > >>>> > > >>>> /* copy the response data to Rx_data buffer */ @@ -286,10 > > >>>> +288,14 @@ static void ipmi_msg_handler(struct ipmi_recv_msg > > >>>> *msg, void > > >>> *user_msg_data) > > >>>> } > > >>>> tx_msg->rx_len = msg->msg.data_len; > > >>>> memcpy(tx_msg->data, msg->msg.data, tx_msg->rx_len); > > >>>> + /* tx_msg content must be valid before setting msg_done flag */ > > >>>> + smp_wmb(); > > >>> That's suspicious. > > >>> > > >>> If you need the write barrier here, you'll most likely need a read > > >>> barrier somewhere else. Where's that? > > >> It might depend on whether the content written before the smp_wmb() is > used or not by the other side codes under the condition set after the > smp_wmb(). > > >> > > >> So comment could be treated as 2 parts: > > >> 1. do we need a paired smp_rmb(). > > >> 2. do we need a smp_wmb(). > > >> > > >> For 1. > > >> If we want a paired smp_rmb(), then it will appear in this function: > > >> > > >> 186 static void acpi_format_ipmi_response(struct acpi_ipmi_msg *msg, > > >> 187 acpi_integer *value, int rem_time) > > >> 188 { > > >> 189 struct acpi_ipmi_buffer *buffer; > > >> 190 > > >> 191 /* > > >> 192 * value is also used as output parameter. It represents the > response > > >> 193 * IPMI message returned by IPMI command. > > >> 194 */ > > >> 195 buffer = (struct acpi_ipmi_buffer *)value; > > >> 196 if (!rem_time && !msg->msg_done) { > > >> 197 buffer->status = ACPI_IPMI_TIMEOUT; > > >> 198 return; > > >> 199 } > > >> 200 /* > > >> 201 * If the flag of msg_done is not set or the recv length is > zero, it > > >> 202 * means that the IPMI command is not executed correctly. > > >> 203 * The status code will be ACPI_IPMI_UNKNOWN. > > >> 204 */ > > >> 205 if (!msg->msg_done || !msg->rx_len) { > > >> 206 buffer->status = ACPI_IPMI_UNKNOWN; > > >> 207 return; > > >> 208 } > > >> + smp_rmb(); > > >> 209 /* > > >> 210 * If the IPMI response message is obtained correctly, the > status code > > >> 211 * will be ACPI_IPMI_OK > > >> 212 */ > > >> 213 buffer->status = ACPI_IPMI_OK; > > >> 214 buffer->length = msg->rx_len; > > >> 215 memcpy(buffer->data, msg->rx_data, msg->rx_len); > > >> 216 } > > >> > > >> If we don't then there will only be msg content not correctly read from > msg->rx_data. > > >> Note that the rx_len is 0 during initialization and will never exceed the > sizeof(buffer->data), so the read is safe. > > >> > > >> Being without smp_rmb() is also OK in this case, since: > > >> 1. buffer->data will never be used when buffer->status is not > > >> ACPI_IPMI_OK and 2. the smp_rmb()/smp_wmb() added in this patch will > be deleted in [PATCH 07]. > > >> > > >> So IMO, we needn't add the smp_rmb(), what do you think of this? > > >> > > >> For 2. > > >> If we don't add smp_wmb() in the ipmi_msg_handler(), then the codes > running on other thread in the acpi_format_ipmi_response() may read wrong > msg->rx_data (a timeout triggers this function, but when > acpi_format_ipmi_response() is entered, the msg->msg_done flag could be > seen as 1 but the msg->rx_data is not ready), this is what we want to avoid in > this quick fix. > > > Using smp_wmb() without the complementary smp_rmb() doesn't makes > > > sense, because each of them prevents only one flow of control from > > > being speculatively reordered, either by the CPU or by the compiler. > > > If only one of them is used without the other, then the flow of > > > control without the barrier may be reordered in a way that will > > > effectively cancel the effect of the barrier in the second flow of control. > > > > > > So, either we need *both* smp_wmb() and smp_rmb(), or we don't need > them at all. > > > > If I understand this correctly, the problem would be if: > > > > rem_time = wait_for_completion_timeout(&tx_msg->tx_complete, > > IPMI_TIMEOUT); > > > > returns on a timeout, then checks msg_done and races with something > > setting msg_done. If that is the case, you would need the smp_rmb() > > before checking msg_done. > > I believe so. > > > However, the timeout above is unnecessary. You are using > > ipmi_request_settime(), so you can set the timeout when the IPMI > > command fails and returns a failure message. The driver guarantees a > > return message for each request. Just remove the timeout from the > > completion, set the timeout and retries in the ipmi request, and the > > completion should handle the barrier issues. > > Good point. > > > Plus, from a quick glance at the code, it doesn't look like it will > > properly handle a situation where the timeout occurs and is handled > > then the response comes in later. > > Lv, what about this? Please refer to my reply to Corey's comment. :-) Thanks and best regards -Lv > > Rafael > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body > of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
