RE: [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently

[Zheng, Lv]

Hi,

> From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rafael J.
> Wysocki
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage
> acpi_get_table() independently
> 
> On Thursday, May 04, 2017 07:18:28 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > Hi, Rafael
> >
> > > From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Rafael J.
> > > Wysocki
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage
> > > acpi_get_table() independently
> > >
> > > On Friday, April 28, 2017 01:30:20 PM Lv Zheng wrote:
> > > > For all frequent late stage acpi_get_table() clone invocations, we should
> > > > only fix them altogether, otherwise, excessive acpi_put_table() could
> > > > unexpectedly unmap the table used by the other users. Thus the current plan
> > > > is to fix all acpi_get_table() clones together or to fix none of them.
> > >
> > > I honestly don't think that fixing none of them is a valid option here.
> >
> > That's just exactly the old behavior, maybe shouldn't be called as "fix".
> > Should say "change to use the new behavior together" all stay unchanged.
> >
> > I actually want to make the change from ACPICA side.
> > But it's costly to persuade ACPICA upstream to take both the
> "acpi_get_table_with_size()/early_acpi_os_unmap_memory() divergence reduction" change and the "table
> map on-demand" change.
> >
> > So we just made 2 things separated, and did 1 thing once.
> >
> > >
> > > > This prevents kernel developers from improving the late stage code quality
> > > > without waiting for the ACPICA upstream to improve first.
> > > >
> > > > This patch adds a mechanism to stop decrementing validation count to
> > > > prevent the table unmapping operations so that acpi_put_table() balance
> > > > fixes can be done independently to each others.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c | 10 ++++++++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > > > index 7abe665..b517bd0 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > > > @@ -445,12 +445,18 @@ void acpi_tb_put_table(struct acpi_table_desc *table_desc)
> > > >
> > > >  	ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE(acpi_tb_put_table);
> > > >
> > > > -	if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> > > > +	if ((table_desc->validation_count + 1) == 0) {
> > >
> > > This means that validation_count has reached the maximum value, right?
> > >
> > > >  		ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> > > > -			      "Table %p, Validation count is zero before decrement\n",
> > > > +			      "Table %p, Validation count is about to expire, decrement is unsafe\n",
> > > >  			      table_desc));
> > >
> > > So why is it unsafe to decrement it?
> >
> > Considering this case:
> > A program opens a sysfs table file 65535 times: validation_count = 65535.
> > Load opcode is invoked by the AML interpreter, but it cannot increase the validation count, see
> acpi_tb_get_table(): validation_count = 65535.
> > Now the program closes the sysfs table file: validation_count = 0, which triggers table unmap.
> > But it is likely that the AML code is still accessing the namespace objects provided by this table.
> > A kernel crash then can be seen.
> >
> > So after applying this patch, 65535 now is the threshold.
> 
> OK, so this is overflow detection in disguise. :-)
> 
> It is quite confusing, IMO.  It would be better to define a limit symbol like
> ACPI_TABLE_VCOUNT_MAX below the natural maximum of the data type
> (say, make it equal to 65534 if the data type is unsigned short int) and then
> make *both* acpi_tb_get_table() and acpi_tb_put_table() refuse to update
> validation_count *and* print a "validation count overflow" message once it
> has become greater than ACPI_TABLE_VCOUNT_MAX (in which case it will
> natrually stay at ACPI_TABLE_VCOUNT_MAX+1).

OK, I'll also make the error message less verbose in the next revision.

Thanks,
Lv