On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
>>> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
>>>>> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am looking at this code in __ps2_command again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> * The reset command takes a long time to execute.
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(command == PS2_CMD_RESET_BAT ? 4000 : 500);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> timeout = wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>>>>>>> !(READ_ONCE(ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD1), timeout);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (smp_load_acquire(&ps2dev->cmdcnt) &&
>>>>>>> !(smp_load_acquire(&ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD1)) {
>>>>>>> timeout = ps2_adjust_timeout(ps2dev, command, timeout);
>>>>>>> wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>>>>>>> !(smp_load_acquire(&ps2dev->flags) &
>>>>>>> PS2_FLAG_CMD), timeout);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (param)
>>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < receive; i++)
>>>>>>> param[i] = ps2dev->cmdbuf[(receive - 1) - i];
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are two moments I don't understand:
>>>>>>> 1. The last parameter of ps2_adjust_timeout is timeout in jiffies (it
>>>>>>> is compared against 100ms). However, timeout is assigned to result of
>>>>>>> wait_event_timeout, which returns 0 or 1. This does not make sense to
>>>>>>> me. What am I missing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that wait_event_timeout can return value greater than one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Returns:
>>>>>> * 0 if the @condition evaluated to %false after the @timeout elapsed,
>>>>>> * 1 if the @condition evaluated to %true after the @timeout elapsed,
>>>>>> * or the remaining jiffies (at least 1) if the @condition evaluated
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, makes sense now!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. This code pays great attention to timeouts, but in the end I don't
>>>>>>> see how it handles timeouts. That is, if a timeout is happened, we
>>>>>>> still copyout (garbage) from cmdbuf. What am I missing here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once upon a time wait_event() did not return positive value when
>>>>>> timeout expired and then condition satisfied. So we just examine the
>>>>>> final state (psmpouse->cmdcnt should be 0 if command actually
>>>>>> succeeded) and even if we copy in garbage nobody should care since
>>>>>> we'll return error in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see.
>>>>> But the cmdcnt is re-read after copying out response. So it is
>>>>> possible that we read garbage response, but then read cmdcnt==0 and
>>>>> return OK to caller.
>>>>
>>>> That assumes that we actually timed out, and while we were copying the
>>>> data the response finally came.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So far I have something along the following lines to fix data races in libps2.c
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, maybe we should simply move call to
>>>> serio_pause_rx(ps2dev->serio) higher, before we check ps2dev->cmdcnt,
>>>> and move copying of the buffer down, after checking cmdcnt.
>>>
>>> I don't know about serio_pause_rx, but copying of response should be
>>> done after checking cmdcnt.
>>
>> It will stop the interrupt handler from running while we are examining
>> the cmdcnt and copy out the data, thus removing the race.
>>
>>> Also you need to use smp_store_release/smp_load_acquire cmdcnt and
>>> flags when they have dependent data. And READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE on
>>> shared state otherwise is highly desirable.
>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c b/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c
>>>>> index 7551699..51c747f 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c
>>>>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ int ps2_sendbyte(struct ps2dev *ps2dev, unsigned
>>>>> char byte, int timeout)
>>>>>
>>>>> if (serio_write(ps2dev->serio, byte) == 0)
>>>>> wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>>>>> - !(ps2dev->flags & PS2_FLAG_ACK),
>>>>> + !(READ_ONCE(ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_ACK),
>>>>> msecs_to_jiffies(timeout));
>>>>>
>>>>> serio_pause_rx(ps2dev->serio);
>>>>> @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ int __ps2_command(struct ps2dev *ps2dev, unsigned
>>>>> char *param, int command)
>>>>> int receive = (command >> 8) & 0xf;
>>>>> int rc = -1;
>>>>> int i;
>>>>> + unsigned char cmdcnt;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (receive > sizeof(ps2dev->cmdbuf)) {
>>>>> WARN_ON(1);
>>>>> @@ -225,23 +226,22 @@ int __ps2_command(struct ps2dev *ps2dev,
>>>>> unsigned char *param, int command)
>>>>> timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(command == PS2_CMD_RESET_BAT ? 4000 : 500);
>>>>>
>>>>> timeout = wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>>>>> - !(ps2dev->flags &
>>>>> PS2_FLAG_CMD1), timeout);
>>>>> -
>>>>> - if (ps2dev->cmdcnt && !(ps2dev->flags & PS2_FLAG_CMD1)) {
>>>>> + !(READ_ONCE(ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD1), timeout);
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (READ_ONCE(&ps2dev->cmdcnt) &&
>>>>> + !(READ_ONCE(&ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD1)) {
>>>>> timeout = ps2_adjust_timeout(ps2dev, command, timeout);
>>>>> wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>>>>> - !(ps2dev->flags & PS2_FLAG_CMD), timeout);
>>>>> + !(READ_ONCE(&ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD), timeout);
>>>>
>>>> What all these READ_ONCE()s give us?
>>>
>>> I've wrote up the response here:
>>> https://github.com/google/ktsan/wiki/READ_ONCE-and-WRITE_ONCE
>>
>> I read it and I still do not understand what READ_ONCE() in
>> wait_event* conditions will buy us.
>>
>> Also if the following is true:
>>
>>> As the consequence C compilers stopped guarantying that "word accesses are atomic".
>>
>> a lot of stuff will break in the kernel. Maybe compilers should stop
>> moving towards the lala land?
>
> It buys us:
> 1. More readable code but highlighting important aspects. Inter-thread
> synchronization is important and complex, explicit is better than
> implicit in such contexts.
*Every* condition in wait_event* is modified by a separate thread,
there is no need to higlight anything.
> 2. Conformance to relevant standards and relieve you, me and everybody
> else reading this code from spending time on proving that it cannot
> break (which is not actually possible to do, "I don't see how it can
> break" is not quite proof).
I expect wait_event() API to ensure that the condition is re-evaluated
properly instead of sprinkling these annotations throughout entire
kernel. As far as I know prepare_to_wait* does provides necessary
barriers.
> 3. Allow tooling that finds undoubtedly harmful bugs, like this one.
You already found this bug without annotations, once it is fixed (by
expanding critical section) there is no longer a reason for using
slower access as there are no concurrency anymore.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
