Re: [BUGFIX v2 2/4] ACPI, DOCK: resolve possible deadlock scenarios

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:36:50 PM Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, June 17, 2013 01:01:51 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> >> On 06/16/2013 05:20 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 10:17:42 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, June 15, 2013 09:44:28 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> When it returns from unregister_hotplug_dock_device(), nothing prevents it
> >>>> from accessing whatever it wants, because ds->hp_lock is not used outside
> >>>> of the add/del and hotplug_dock_devices().  So, the actual role of
> >>>> ds->hp_lock (not the one that it is supposed to play, but the real one)
> >>>> is to prevent addition/deletion from happening when hotplug_dock_devices()
> >>>> is running.  [Yes, it does protect the list, but since the list is in fact
> >>>> unnecessary, that doesn't matter.]
> >>>>
> >>>>> If we simply use a flag to mark presence of registered callback, we 
> >>>>> can't achieve the second goal.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't mean using the flag *alone*.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Take the sony laptop as an example. It has several PCI 
> >>>>> hotplug
> >>>>> slot associated with the dock station:
> >>>>> [   28.829316] acpiphp_glue: _handle_hotplug_event_func: Bus check 
> >>>>> notify on \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB
> >>>>> [   30.174964] acpiphp_glue: _handle_hotplug_event_func: Bus check 
> >>>>> notify on \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB.LPM0
> >>>>> [   30.174973] acpiphp_glue: _handle_hotplug_event_func: Bus check 
> >>>>> notify on \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB.LPM1
> >>>>> [   30.174979] acpiphp_glue: _handle_hotplug_event_func: Bus check 
> >>>>> notify on \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB.LPM2
> >>>>> [   30.174985] acpiphp_glue: _handle_hotplug_event_func: Bus check 
> >>>>> notify on \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB.LPM2.LPRI.LPR0.GFXA
> >>>>> [   30.175020] acpiphp_glue: _handle_hotplug_event_func: Bus check 
> >>>>> notify on \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB.LPM2.LPRI.LPR0.GHDA
> >>>>> [   30.175040] acpiphp_glue: _handle_hotplug_event_func: Bus check 
> >>>>> notify on \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB.LPM2.LPRI.LPR1.LPCI.LPC0.DLAN
> >>>>> [   30.175050] acpiphp_glue: _handle_hotplug_event_func: Bus check 
> >>>>> notify on \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB.LPM2.LPRI.LPR1.LPCI.LPC1.DODD
> >>>>> [   30.175060] acpiphp_glue: _handle_hotplug_event_func: Bus check 
> >>>>> notify on \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB.LPM2.LPRI.LPR1.LPCI.LPC2.DUSB
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So it still has some race windows if we undock the station while 
> >>>>> repeatedly rescanning/removing
> >>>>> the PCI bus for \_SB_.PCI0.RP07.LPMB.LPM0 through sysfs interfaces.
> >>>
> >>> Which sysfs interfaces do you mean, by the way?
> >>>
> >>> If you mean "eject", then it takes acpi_scan_lock and hotplug_dock_devices()
> >>> should always be run under acpi_scan_lock too.  It isn't at the moment,t
> >>> because write_undock() doesn't take acpi_scan_lock(), but this is an obvious
> >>> bug (so I'm going to send a patch to fix it in a while).
> >>>
> >>> With that bug fixed, the possible race between acpi_eject_store() and
> >>> hotplug_dock_devices() should be prevented from happening, so perhaps we're
> >>> worrying about something that cannot happen?
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >> 	I mean the "remove" method of each PCI device, and the "power" method
> >> of PCI hotplug slot here.
> >> 	These methods may be used to remove P2P bridges with associated ACPIPHP
> >> hotplug slots, which in turn will cause invoking of
> >> unregister_hotplug_dock_device().
> >> 	So theoretical we may trigger the bug by undocking while repeatedly
> >> adding/removing P2P bridges with ACPIPHP hotplug slot through PCI
> >> "rescan" and "remove" sysfs interface,
> > 
> > Why don't we make these things take acpi_scan_lock upfront, then?
> Hi Rafael,
>     Seems we can't rely on acpi_scan_lock here, it may cause another
> deadlock scenario:
> 1) thread 1 acquired the acpi_scan_lock and tries to destroy all sysfs
> interfaces for PCI devices.
> 2) thread 2 opens a PCI sysfs which then tries to acquire the
> acpi_scan_lock.

Well, maybe, but you didn't explain how this was going to happen.  What code
paths are involved, etc.

Quite frankly, I've already run out of patience, sorry about that.  It looks
like I need to go through the code and understand all of these problems myself.
Yes, it will take time.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/