Re: [PATCH v3 01/23] ata: libata-core: Fix ata_port_request_pm() locking

Niklas Cassel
2023-09-20T07:21:24Z

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 09:31:04AM -0700, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2023/09/19 6:21, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 05:14:45PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> >> The function ata_port_request_pm() checks the port flag
> >> ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING and calls ata_port_wait_eh() if this flag is set to
> >> ensure that power management operations for a port are not secheduled
> >
> > s/secheduled/scheduled/
> >
> >> simultaneously. However, this flag check is done without holding the
> >> port lock.
> >>
> >> Fix this by taking the port lock on entry to the function and checking
> >> the flag under this lock. The lock is released and re-taken if
> >> ata_port_wait_eh() needs to be called.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 5ef41082912b ("ata: add ata port system PM callbacks")
> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> >> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
> >> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
> >> Tested-by: Chia-Lin Kao (AceLan) <acelan.kao@canonical.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 17 +++++++++--------
> >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> >> index 74314311295f..c4898483d716 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-core.c
> >> @@ -5040,17 +5040,20 @@ static void ata_port_request_pm(struct ata_port *ap, pm_message_t mesg,
> >> struct ata_link *link;
> >> unsigned long flags;
> >>
> >> - /* Previous resume operation might still be in
> >> - * progress. Wait for PM_PENDING to clear.
> >> + spin_lock_irqsave(ap->lock, flags);
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * A previous PM operation might still be in progress. Wait for
> >> + * ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING to clear.
> >> */
> >> if (ap->pflags & ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING) {
> >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(ap->lock, flags);
> >> ata_port_wait_eh(ap);
> >> + spin_lock_irqsave(ap->lock, flags);
> >> WARN_ON(ap->pflags & ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING);
> >> }
> >>
> >> - /* request PM ops to EH */
> >> - spin_lock_irqsave(ap->lock, flags);
> >> -
> >> + /* Request PM operation to EH */
> >> ap->pm_mesg = mesg;
> >> ap->pflags |= ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING;
> >> ata_for_each_link(link, ap, HOST_FIRST) {
> >> @@ -5062,10 +5065,8 @@ static void ata_port_request_pm(struct ata_port *ap, pm_message_t mesg,
> >>
> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(ap->lock, flags);
> >>
> >> - if (!async) {
> >> + if (!async)
> >> ata_port_wait_eh(ap);
> >> - WARN_ON(ap->pflags & ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING);
> >
> > Perhaps you should mention why this WARN_ON() is removed in the commit
> > message.
> >
> > I don't understand why you keep the WARN_ON() higher up in this function,
> > but remove this WARN_ON(). They seem to have equal worth to me.
> > Perhaps just take and release the lock around the WARN_ON() here as well?
>
> Yes, they have the same worth == not super useful... I kept the one higher up as
> it is OK because we hold the lock, but removed the second one as checking pflags
> without the lock is just plain wrong. Thinking of it, the first WRN_ON() is also
> wrong I think because EH could be rescheduled right after wait_eh and before we
> take the lock. In that case, the warn on would be a flase positive. I will
> remove it as well.

We are checking if ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING is set, if it is, we do
ata_port_wait_eh(), which will wait until both ATA_PFLAG_EH_PENDING and
ATA_PFLAG_EH_IN_PROGRESS is cleared.

Note that ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING and ATA_PFLAG_EH_PENDING have very similar
names... I really think we should rename ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING to something
like ATA_PFLAG_EH_PM_PENDING (the PM is performed by EH), in order to make
it harder to mix them up.

Since the only place that sets ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING is ata_port_request_pm()
and since PM core holds the device lock (device_lock()), I don't think that
ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING can get set while inside ata_port_request_pm().
And since we wait for EH to complete, and since both
ata_eh_handle_port_suspend() and ata_eh_handle_port_resume() are called
unconditionally by EH, they will only return if ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING is not
set, and since these functions both clear ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING unconditionally,
I would agree with you, that these two WARN_ON() seem superfluous.

(Yes, EH could trigger again if we got an error IRQ before ata_port_request_pm()
takes the lock the second time, but that can only set ATA_PFLAG_EH_PENDING,
it can not set ATA_PFLAG_PM_PENDING.)

Kind regards,
Niklas