Re: [PATCH 1/2] uio: Add late_release callback to uio_info

[Bodo Stroesser <bostroesser@gmail.com>]

On 11.02.21 07:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 08:57:11PM +0100, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
>> On 10.02.21 20:47, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 08:40:30PM +0100, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
>>>> If uio_unregister_device() is called while userspace daemon
>>>> still holds the uio device open or mmap'ed, uio will not call
>>>> uio_info->release() on later close / munmap.
>>>>
>>>> At least one user of uio (tcmu) should not free resources (pages
>>>> allocated by tcmu which are mmap'ed to userspace) while uio
>>>> device still is open, because that could cause userspace daemon
>>>> to be killed by SIGSEGV or SIGBUS. Therefore tcmu frees the
>>>> pages only after it called uio_unregister_device _and_ the device
>>>> was closed.
>>>> So, uio not calling uio_info->release causes trouble.
>>>> tcmu currently leaks memory in that case.
>>>>
>>>> Just waiting for userspace daemon to exit before calling
>>>> uio_unregister_device I think is not the right solution, because
>>>> daemon would not become aware of kernel code wanting to destroy
>>>> the uio device.
>>>> After uio_unregister_device was called, reading or writing the
>>>> uio device returns -EIO, which normally results in daemon exit.
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds new callback pointer 'late_release' to struct
>>>> uio_info. If uio user sets this callback, it will be called by
>>>> uio if userspace closes / munmaps the device after
>>>> uio_unregister_device was executed.
>>>>
>>>> That way we can use uio_unregister_device() to notify userspace
>>>> that we are going to destroy the device, but still get a call
>>>> to late_release when uio device is finally closed.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bodo Stroesser <bostroesser@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    Documentation/driver-api/uio-howto.rst | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>    drivers/uio/uio.c                      |  4 ++++
>>>>    include/linux/uio_driver.h             |  4 ++++
>>>>    3 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/uio-howto.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/uio-howto.rst
>>>> index 907ffa3b38f5..a2d57a7d623a 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/uio-howto.rst
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/uio-howto.rst
>>>> @@ -265,6 +265,16 @@ the members are required, others are optional.
>>>>       function. The parameter ``irq_on`` will be 0 to disable interrupts
>>>>       and 1 to enable them.
>>>> +-  ``int (*late_release)(struct uio_info *info, struct inode *inode)``:
>>>> +   Optional. If you define your own :c:func:`open()`, you will
>>>> +   in certain cases also want a custom :c:func:`late_release()`
>>>> +   function. If uio device is unregistered - by calling
>>>> +   :c:func:`uio_unregister_device()` - while it is open or mmap'ed by
>>>> +   userspace, the custom :c:func:`release()` function will not be
>>>> +   called when userspace later closes the device. An optionally
>>>> +   specified :c:func:`late_release()` function will be called in that
>>>> +   situation.
>>>> +
>>>>    Usually, your device will have one or more memory regions that can be
>>>>    mapped to user space. For each region, you have to set up a
>>>>    ``struct uio_mem`` in the ``mem[]`` array. Here's a description of the
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/uio/uio.c b/drivers/uio/uio.c
>>>> index ea96e319c8a0..0b2636f8d373 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/uio/uio.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/uio/uio.c
>>>> @@ -532,6 +532,8 @@ static int uio_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
>>>>    	mutex_lock(&idev->info_lock);
>>>>    	if (idev->info && idev->info->release)
>>>>    		ret = idev->info->release(idev->info, inode);
>>>> +	else if (idev->late_info && idev->late_info->late_release)
>>>> +		ret = idev->late_info->late_release(idev->late_info, inode);
>>>>    	mutex_unlock(&idev->info_lock);
>>>
>>> Why can't release() be called here?  Why doesn't your driver define a
>>> release() if it cares about this information?  Why do we need 2
>>> different callbacks that fire at exactly the same time?
>>>
>>> This feels really wrong.
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>>
>>
>> tcmu has a release callback. But uio can't call it after
>> uio_unregister_device was executed, because in uio_unregister_device
>> uio sets the uio_device::info to NULL.
> 
> As it should because the driver could then be gone.  It should NEVER
> call back into it again.

OTOH, uio does try_module_get(idev->owner) in uio_open before calling
the driver's open callback and module_put(idev_owner) in uio_release
after calling driver's release callback. So driver's release callback
is guaranteed to exist until last release is done.

Apart from that, tcmu also has an uio_info::mmap callback. In that
callback it installs its own vm_operations_struct::fault handler.
This handler also can happen to be called as long as userspace holds
the uio device mmap'ed. I think, this is not a problem due to the
above mentioned mechanism.

tcmu just has to ensure, that the tcmu device, which contains the 
uio_info - is kept until the final release call happens. Unfortunately
this call will not happen if uio device is open during
uio_unregister_device. That's why tcmu sometimes leaks memory.

> 
>> So, uio would never call both callbacks for the same release action,
>> but would call release before uio_unregister_device is executed, and
>> late_release after that.
> 
> That's not ok.
> 
>> Of course it would be good for tcmu if uio would call uio_info:release even
>> after uio_unregister_device, but changing this AFAICS could cause
>> trouble in other drivers using uio.
> 
> You are confusing two different lifetime rules here it seems.  One is
> the char device and one is the struct device.  They work independently
> as different users affect them.
I'm not sure I get your point.

> 
> So if one is removed from the system, do not try to keep a callback to
> it, otherwise you will crash.

That's why I tried to change uio in a compatible way, so other drivers
based on it are not afflicted by the change. I saw, that some drivers
based on uio free their resources directly after calling
uio_unregister_device. Executing their release callback later would
definitely cause trouble.

> 
> And why is scsi using the uio driver in the first place?  That feels
> really odd to me.  Why not just make a "real" driver if you want to
> somehow tie these two lifetimes together?

Why tcmu driver is based on uio I don't know. I inherited the driver as
it is. Maybe it would have been better to not base it on uio, I don't
know. But changing this now would cause an API change for all existing
userspace apps, e.g. tcmu-runner. I think I should avoid that and
therefore have to find an acceptable solution for the tcmu/uio
combination.

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>