From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>
Cc: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Wangzhou <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Yang Shen <shenyang39@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uacce: fix concurrency of fops_open and uacce_remove
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:44:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YrF2yypHZfiNVRBh@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b5011dd2-e8ec-a307-1b43-5aff6cbb6891@linaro.org>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 03:37:31PM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/6/20 下午9:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 02:24:31PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:05:21PM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
> > > > > The refcount only ensures that the uacce_device object is not freed as
> > > > > long as there are open fds. But uacce_remove() can run while there are
> > > > > open fds, or fds in the process of being opened. And atfer uacce_remove()
> > > > > runs, the uacce_device object still exists but is mostly unusable. For
> > > > > example once the module is freed, uacce->ops is not valid anymore. But
> > > > > currently uacce_fops_open() may dereference the ops in this case:
> > > > >
> > > > > uacce_fops_open()
> > > > > if (!uacce->parent->driver)
> > > > > /* Still valid, keep going */
> > > > > ... rmmod
> > > > > uacce_remove()
> > > > > ... free_module()
> > > > > uacce->ops->get_queue() /* BUG */
> > > > uacce_remove should wait for uacce->queues_lock, until fops_open release the
> > > > lock.
> > > > If open happen just after the uacce_remove: unlock, uacce_bind_queue in open
> > > > should fail.
> > > Ah yes sorry, I lost sight of what this patch was adding. But we could
> > > have the same issue with the patch, just in a different order, no?
> > >
> > > uacce_fops_open()
> > > uacce = xa_load()
> > > ... rmmod
> > Um, how is rmmod called if the file descriptor is open?
> >
> > That should not be possible if the owner of the file descriptor is
> > properly set. Please fix that up.
> Thanks Greg
>
> Set cdev owner or use module_get/put can block rmmod once fops_open.
> - uacce->cdev->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> + uacce->cdev->owner = uacce->parent->driver->owner;
>
> However, still not find good method to block removing parent pci device.
>
> $ echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:00:02.0/remove &
>
> [ 32.563350] uacce_remove+0x6c/0x148
> [ 32.563353] hisi_qm_uninit+0x12c/0x178
> [ 32.563356] hisi_zip_remove+0xa0/0xd0 [hisi_zip]
> [ 32.563361] pci_device_remove+0x44/0xd8
> [ 32.563364] device_remove+0x54/0x88
> [ 32.563367] device_release_driver_internal+0xec/0x1a0
> [ 32.563370] device_release_driver+0x20/0x30
> [ 32.563372] pci_stop_bus_device+0x8c/0xe0
> [ 32.563375] pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device_locked+0x28/0x60
> [ 32.563378] remove_store+0x9c/0xb0
> [ 32.563379] dev_attr_store+0x20/0x38
Removing the parent pci device does not remove the module code, it
removes the device itself. Don't confuse code vs. data here.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-21 7:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-10 12:34 [PATCH] uacce: fix concurrency of fops_open and uacce_remove Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-15 15:16 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2022-06-16 4:10 ` Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-16 8:14 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2022-06-17 6:05 ` Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-17 8:20 ` Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-17 14:23 ` Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-20 13:25 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2022-06-20 13:24 ` Jean-Philippe Brucker
2022-06-20 13:36 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-06-21 7:37 ` Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-21 7:44 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2022-06-22 8:14 ` Zhangfei Gao
2022-06-22 8:24 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-06-20 13:38 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-06-20 20:18 ` [PATCH] uacce: Tidy up locking kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YrF2yypHZfiNVRBh@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shenyang39@huawei.com \
--cc=wangzhou1@hisilicon.com \
--cc=zhangfei.gao@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox