| Message ID | 1475777186-20486-1-git-send-email-akarwar@marvell.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Kalle Valo |
| Headers | show |
Hi Amit, On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:36:24PM +0530, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > From: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > card->adapter gets initialized during device registration. > As it's not cleared, we may end up accessing invalid memory > in some corner cases. This patch fixes the problem. > > Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@marvell.com> > --- > v4: Same as v1, v2, v3 > --- > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c | 1 + > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > index f1eeb73..ba9e068 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > @@ -3042,6 +3042,7 @@ static void mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > pci_disable_msi(pdev); > } > } > + card->adapter = NULL; > } > > /* This function initializes the PCI-E host memory space, WCB rings, etc. > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > index 8718950..4cad1c2 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > @@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card; > > if (adapter->card) { > + card->adapter = NULL; > sdio_claim_host(card->func); > sdio_disable_func(card->func); > sdio_release_host(card->func); As discussed on v1, I had qualms about the raciness between reads/writes of card->adapter, but I believe we: (a) can't have any command activity while writing the ->adapter field (either we're just init'ing the device, or we've disabled interrupts and are tearing it down) and (b) can't have a race between suspend()/resume() and unregister_dev(), since unregister_dev() is called from device remove() (which should not be concurrent with suspend()). Also, I thought you had the same problem in usb.c, but in fact, you fixed that ages ago here: 353d2a69ea26 mwifiex: fix issues in driver unload path for USB chipsets Would be nice if fixes were bettery synchronized across the three interface drivers you support. We seem to be discovering unnecessary divergence on a few points recently. At any rate: Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> Thanks.
+ Dmitry Hi Amit, On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:36:24PM +0530, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > From: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > > > card->adapter gets initialized during device registration. > > As it's not cleared, we may end up accessing invalid memory > > in some corner cases. This patch fixes the problem. > > > > Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@marvell.com> > > --- > > v4: Same as v1, v2, v3 > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c | 1 + > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > index f1eeb73..ba9e068 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > @@ -3042,6 +3042,7 @@ static void mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > > pci_disable_msi(pdev); > > } > > } > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > } > > > > /* This function initializes the PCI-E host memory space, WCB rings, etc. > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > index 8718950..4cad1c2 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > @@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > > struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card; > > > > if (adapter->card) { > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > sdio_claim_host(card->func); > > sdio_disable_func(card->func); > > sdio_release_host(card->func); > > As discussed on v1, I had qualms about the raciness between reads/writes > of card->adapter, but I believe we: > (a) can't have any command activity while writing the ->adapter field > (either we're just init'ing the device, or we've disabled interrupts and > are tearing it down) and > (b) can't have a race between suspend()/resume() and unregister_dev(), > since unregister_dev() is called from device remove() (which should not > be concurrent with suspend()). > > Also, I thought you had the same problem in usb.c, but in fact, you > fixed that ages ago here: > > 353d2a69ea26 mwifiex: fix issues in driver unload path for USB chipsets > > Would be nice if fixes were bettery synchronized across the three > interface drivers you support. We seem to be discovering unnecessary > divergence on a few points recently. > > At any rate: > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> > Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> Dmitry helped me re-realize my original qualms: mwifiex_unregister_dev() is called in the failure path for your async FW request, and so it may race with suspend(). So I retract my Reviewed-by. Sorry. I'm going to look into converting to asynchronous device probing, which might remove the need for async FW request, and would therefore resolve both patch 1 and 3's races without any additional complicated hacks. But I'm not sure if that will satisfy all mwifiex users well enough. I'll have to give it a little more thought. Any thoughts from your side, Amit? Brian
Hi Brian/Dmitry, > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@chromium.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:53 AM > To: Amitkumar Karwar > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Cathy Luo; Nishant Sarmukadam; > rajatja@google.com; Xinming Hu; abhishekbh@google.com; Dmitry Torokhov > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mwifiex: reset card->adapter during device > unregister > > + Dmitry > > Hi Amit, > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:36:24PM +0530, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > > From: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > > > > > card->adapter gets initialized during device registration. > > > As it's not cleared, we may end up accessing invalid memory in some > > > corner cases. This patch fixes the problem. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@marvell.com> > > > --- > > > v4: Same as v1, v2, v3 > > > --- > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c | 1 + > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 1 + > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > index f1eeb73..ba9e068 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > @@ -3042,6 +3042,7 @@ static void mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct > mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > > > pci_disable_msi(pdev); > > > } > > > } > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > } > > > > > > /* This function initializes the PCI-E host memory space, WCB > rings, etc. > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > index 8718950..4cad1c2 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > @@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct mwifiex_adapter > *adapter) > > > struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card; > > > > > > if (adapter->card) { > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > sdio_claim_host(card->func); > > > sdio_disable_func(card->func); > > > sdio_release_host(card->func); > > > > As discussed on v1, I had qualms about the raciness between > > reads/writes of card->adapter, but I believe we: > > (a) can't have any command activity while writing the ->adapter field > > (either we're just init'ing the device, or we've disabled interrupts > > and are tearing it down) and > > (b) can't have a race between suspend()/resume() and unregister_dev(), > > since unregister_dev() is called from device remove() (which should > > not be concurrent with suspend()). > > > > Also, I thought you had the same problem in usb.c, but in fact, you > > fixed that ages ago here: > > > > 353d2a69ea26 mwifiex: fix issues in driver unload path for USB > > chipsets > > > > Would be nice if fixes were bettery synchronized across the three > > interface drivers you support. We seem to be discovering unnecessary > > divergence on a few points recently. > > > > At any rate: > > > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> > > Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> > > Dmitry helped me re-realize my original qualms: > > mwifiex_unregister_dev() is called in the failure path for your async FW > request, and so it may race with suspend(). So I retract my Reviewed-by. > Sorry. Thanks for your comments. Actually description for this patch was ambiguous and incorrect. Sorry for that. This patch doesn't fix any race. In fact, we don't have a race between init and remove threads due to semaphore usage as per design. This patch just adds missing "card->adapter=NULL" so that when teardown/remove thread starts after init failure, it won't try freeing already freed things. I have updated patch description in v5 series. You are right. We may have a race between init failure and suspend thread. I have prepared 4th patch in my v5 series to address this. > > I'm going to look into converting to asynchronous device probing, which > might remove the need for async FW request, and would therefore resolve > both patch 1 and 3's races without any additional complicated hacks. But > I'm not sure if that will satisfy all mwifiex users well enough. I'll > have to give it a little more thought. Any thoughts from your side, > Amit? > This is not needed. 4th patch in V5 series would take care of this race. I will be posting v5 series shortly. Regards, Amitkumar
Hi Amit, On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:11:31PM +0000, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@chromium.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:53 AM > > To: Amitkumar Karwar > > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Cathy Luo; Nishant Sarmukadam; > > rajatja@google.com; Xinming Hu; abhishekbh@google.com; Dmitry Torokhov > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mwifiex: reset card->adapter during device > > unregister > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:36:24PM +0530, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > > > From: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > card->adapter gets initialized during device registration. > > > > As it's not cleared, we may end up accessing invalid memory in some > > > > corner cases. This patch fixes the problem. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@marvell.com> > > > > --- > > > > v4: Same as v1, v2, v3 > > > > --- > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c | 1 + > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 1 + > > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > index f1eeb73..ba9e068 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > @@ -3042,6 +3042,7 @@ static void mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct > > mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > > > > pci_disable_msi(pdev); > > > > } > > > > } > > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* This function initializes the PCI-E host memory space, WCB > > rings, etc. > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > index 8718950..4cad1c2 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > @@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct mwifiex_adapter > > *adapter) > > > > struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card; > > > > > > > > if (adapter->card) { > > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > > sdio_claim_host(card->func); > > > > sdio_disable_func(card->func); > > > > sdio_release_host(card->func); > > > > > > As discussed on v1, I had qualms about the raciness between > > > reads/writes of card->adapter, but I believe we: > > > (a) can't have any command activity while writing the ->adapter field > > > (either we're just init'ing the device, or we've disabled interrupts > > > and are tearing it down) and > > > (b) can't have a race between suspend()/resume() and unregister_dev(), > > > since unregister_dev() is called from device remove() (which should > > > not be concurrent with suspend()). > > > > > > Also, I thought you had the same problem in usb.c, but in fact, you > > > fixed that ages ago here: > > > > > > 353d2a69ea26 mwifiex: fix issues in driver unload path for USB > > > chipsets > > > > > > Would be nice if fixes were bettery synchronized across the three > > > interface drivers you support. We seem to be discovering unnecessary > > > divergence on a few points recently. > > > > > > At any rate: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> > > > Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> > > > > Dmitry helped me re-realize my original qualms: > > > > mwifiex_unregister_dev() is called in the failure path for your async FW > > request, and so it may race with suspend(). So I retract my Reviewed-by. > > Sorry. > > Thanks for your comments. > > Actually description for this patch was ambiguous and incorrect. Sorry > for that. This patch doesn't fix any race. In fact, we don't have a > race between init and remove threads due to semaphore usage as per > design. This patch just adds missing "card->adapter=NULL" so that when > teardown/remove thread starts after init failure, it won't try freeing > already freed things. So to be clear, you'r talking about mwifiex_fw_dpc(), which in the error path has: if (adapter->if_ops.unregister_dev) adapter->if_ops.unregister_dev(adapter); <--- POINT A: This is where you want to set ->adapter = NULL ... if (init_failed) mwifiex_free_adapter(adapter); up(sem); <--- POINT B: This is where you release the semaphore, which is supposed to guarantee that remove() isn't happening return; } But you *do* have a race between the above code and the remove code in some cases. Particularly, see this: static void mwifiex_pcie_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) { struct pcie_service_card *card; struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter; struct mwifiex_private *priv; card = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); if (!card) return; adapter = card->adapter; <--- POINT C: This can execute at the same time as unregister_dev() if (!adapter || !adapter->priv_num) return; if (user_rmmod && !adapter->mfg_mode) { #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP if (adapter->is_suspended) mwifiex_pcie_resume(&pdev->dev); #endif mwifiex_deauthenticate_all(adapter); priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter, MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY); mwifiex_disable_auto_ds(priv); mwifiex_init_shutdown_fw(priv, MWIFIEX_FUNC_SHUTDOWN); } mwifiex_remove_card(card->adapter, &add_remove_card_sem); <--- POINT D: You only grab the semaphore here } So IIUC, you have a race **even here, where you claim the semaphore should protect you** such that the adapter might be freed, but you still can access it anywhere between C and D. i.e., you can see this: Thread 1 Thread 2 (1) POINT C (retrieve adapter != NULL) (2) POINT A (set adapter NULL) (3) POINT B (adapter has been freed) (3) ....Keep accessing freed adapter structure (4) POINT D - acquire semaphore, but we're too late Step 3 is an error, and AFAICT, that's exactly what you're trying to solve in this patch. It essentially comes down to the same fact: you're getting a reference to the adapter structure *without* any protection at all. Your add_remove_card_sem is *almost* the right thing to resolve this, but you still don't have the ordering quite right. Maybe you could solve this all by acquiring the semaphore in suspend(), remove(), shutdown(), before you ever acquire the card->adapter? If you do that first (to fix the race), and only *then* do you submit the $subject patch, then you might have fixed all the races in question (at least between FW init and {suspend,resume,remove,shutdown} -- you have plenty of other races still, both known and unknown). [[ Also, a side note on POINT D: it's possible that even though you're retrieving card->adapter in the argument to that function call, it's possible the compiler will notice that this is redundant with the retrieval at POINT C and just use that one. But even if not, there's a window between "retrieve function argument" and "grab semaphore in mwifiex_remove_card()". ]] --- BTW I'm gonna sidetrack us here... what's up with this code, in pcie.c? if (!down_interruptible(&add_remove_card_sem)) up(&add_remove_card_sem); I can understand that you want to grab the semaphore for the remove code, but why do you want to immediately release it? If you release it, that must mean that someone else is trying to get it. And they won't notice that you're tearing down the device... (Also, why aren't you handling the interrupted case?) > I have updated patch description in v5 series. > > You are right. We may have a race between init failure and suspend > thread. I have prepared 4th patch in my v5 series to address this. > > > > > I'm going to look into converting to asynchronous device probing, which > > might remove the need for async FW request, and would therefore resolve > > both patch 1 and 3's races without any additional complicated hacks. But > > I'm not sure if that will satisfy all mwifiex users well enough. I'll > > have to give it a little more thought. Any thoughts from your side, > > Amit? > > > > This is not needed. Yeah, I ended up deciding this really wasn't that great of a solution. For one, you also need to do firmware reloads for your PCIe reset handling, and this happens in parallel to any device suspend. So: (a) I'd bet that has plenty of race conditions and (b) that means we can't just "load the firmware synchronously once and forget about it" > 4th patch in V5 series would take care of this race. No, patch 4 does not handle this race, and it doesn't handle the race I point out above either. You still can get a pointer card->adapter and then see another thread subsequently free() it out from under you. > I will be posting v5 series shortly. Nak to both v4 and v5. They're not substantially different. Brian
Hi Brian, Thanks for review. > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@chromium.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 6:22 AM > To: Amitkumar Karwar > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Cathy Luo; Nishant Sarmukadam; > rajatja@google.com; Xinming Hu; abhishekbh@google.com; Dmitry Torokhov > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mwifiex: reset card->adapter during device > unregister > > Hi Amit, > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:11:31PM +0000, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@chromium.org] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:53 AM > > > To: Amitkumar Karwar > > > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Cathy Luo; Nishant Sarmukadam; > > > rajatja@google.com; Xinming Hu; abhishekbh@google.com; Dmitry > > > Torokhov > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mwifiex: reset card->adapter during > > > device unregister > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:36:24PM +0530, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > > > > From: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > > > card->adapter gets initialized during device registration. > > > > > As it's not cleared, we may end up accessing invalid memory in > > > > > some corner cases. This patch fixes the problem. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@marvell.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > v4: Same as v1, v2, v3 > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c | 1 + > > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 1 + > > > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > index f1eeb73..ba9e068 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > @@ -3042,6 +3042,7 @@ static void mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct > > > mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > > > > > pci_disable_msi(pdev); > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > /* This function initializes the PCI-E host memory space, WCB > > > rings, etc. > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > index 8718950..4cad1c2 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > @@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct > > > > > mwifiex_adapter > > > *adapter) > > > > > struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card; > > > > > > > > > > if (adapter->card) { > > > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > > > sdio_claim_host(card->func); > > > > > sdio_disable_func(card->func); > > > > > sdio_release_host(card->func); > > > > > > > > As discussed on v1, I had qualms about the raciness between > > > > reads/writes of card->adapter, but I believe we: > > > > (a) can't have any command activity while writing the ->adapter > > > > field (either we're just init'ing the device, or we've disabled > > > > interrupts and are tearing it down) and > > > > (b) can't have a race between suspend()/resume() and > > > > unregister_dev(), since unregister_dev() is called from device > > > > remove() (which should not be concurrent with suspend()). > > > > > > > > Also, I thought you had the same problem in usb.c, but in fact, > > > > you fixed that ages ago here: > > > > > > > > 353d2a69ea26 mwifiex: fix issues in driver unload path for USB > > > > chipsets > > > > > > > > Would be nice if fixes were bettery synchronized across the three > > > > interface drivers you support. We seem to be discovering > > > > unnecessary divergence on a few points recently. > > > > > > > > At any rate: > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> > > > > Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> > > > > > > Dmitry helped me re-realize my original qualms: > > > > > > mwifiex_unregister_dev() is called in the failure path for your > > > async FW request, and so it may race with suspend(). So I retract my > Reviewed-by. > > > Sorry. > > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > Actually description for this patch was ambiguous and incorrect. Sorry > > for that. This patch doesn't fix any race. In fact, we don't have a > > race between init and remove threads due to semaphore usage as per > > design. This patch just adds missing "card->adapter=NULL" so that when > > teardown/remove thread starts after init failure, it won't try freeing > > already freed things. > > So to be clear, you'r talking about mwifiex_fw_dpc(), which in the error > path > has: > > if (adapter->if_ops.unregister_dev) > adapter->if_ops.unregister_dev(adapter); <--- POINT A: > This is where you want to set ->adapter = NULL ... > if (init_failed) > mwifiex_free_adapter(adapter); > up(sem); <--- POINT B: This is where you release the semaphore, > which is supposed to guarantee that remove() isn't happening > return; > } > > But you *do* have a race between the above code and the remove code in > some cases. Particularly, see this: > > static void mwifiex_pcie_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) { > struct pcie_service_card *card; > struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter; > struct mwifiex_private *priv; > > card = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); > if (!card) > return; > > adapter = card->adapter; <--- POINT C: This can execute at the > same time as unregister_dev() > if (!adapter || !adapter->priv_num) > return; > > if (user_rmmod && !adapter->mfg_mode) { #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > if (adapter->is_suspended) > mwifiex_pcie_resume(&pdev->dev); #endif > > mwifiex_deauthenticate_all(adapter); > > priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter, MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY); > > mwifiex_disable_auto_ds(priv); > > mwifiex_init_shutdown_fw(priv, MWIFIEX_FUNC_SHUTDOWN); > } > > mwifiex_remove_card(card->adapter, &add_remove_card_sem); <--- > POINT D: You only grab the semaphore here } > > So IIUC, you have a race **even here, where you claim the semaphore > should protect you** such that the adapter might be freed, but you still > can access it anywhere between C and D. i.e., you can see this: > > Thread 1 Thread 2 > (1) POINT C (retrieve adapter != > NULL) > (2) POINT A (set adapter NULL) > (3) POINT B (adapter has been freed) > (3) ....Keep accessing freed > adapter structure > (4) POINT D - acquire semaphore, > but we're too late > > Step 3 is an error, and AFAICT, that's exactly what you're trying to > solve in this patch. It essentially comes down to the same fact: you're > getting a reference to the adapter structure *without* any protection at > all. Your add_remove_card_sem is *almost* the right thing to resolve > this, but you still don't have the ordering quite right. Code between POINT C and POINT D won't come into picture for "init + reboot" scenario(Case 1 below) which we are talking here. Reason is "user_rmmod" flag will be false. Basically we have 3 teardown cases 1) System shutdown (or manually remove wifi card) -- Only mwifiex_pcie_remove() gets called. 2) User unloading the driver -- mwifiex_pcie_cleanup_module() followed by mwifiex_pcie_remove() gets called. 3) Chip isn't connected. User unloaded the driver -- Only mwifiex_pcie_cleanup_module() gets called. In case 2, we have already waited for semaphore in mwifiex_pcie_cleanup_module(). So by the time we execute mwifiex_pcie_remove(), "card->adapter" is NULL. Case 3, doesn't use "card->adapter" > > Maybe you could solve this all by acquiring the semaphore in suspend(), > remove(), shutdown(), before you ever acquire the card->adapter? If you > do that first (to fix the race), and only *then* do you submit the > $subject patch, then you might have fixed all the races in question (at > least between FW init and {suspend,resume,remove,shutdown} -- you have > plenty of other races still, both known and unknown). "add_remove_card_sem" is used only for init and teardown threads as per our design. V5 4/4 takes care of race between "init fail + suspend". Please let us know if you see any other race situation. > > [[ Also, a side note on POINT D: it's possible that even though you're > retrieving card->adapter in the argument to that function call, it's > possible the compiler will notice that this is redundant with the > retrieval at POINT C and just use that one. But even if not, there's a > window between "retrieve function argument" and "grab semaphore in > mwifiex_remove_card()". ]] I had not considered that compiler will notice this is redundant and use "card->adapter" assigned at POINT C. But this window is very small compared to the window between in "card->adapter = NULL" and releasing semaphore in other(mwifiex_fw_dpc()) thread. Even if "card->adapter" is set to NULL in mwifiex_fw_dpc() after we checked it at POINT C, we will return from mwifiex_remove_card() without grabing semaphore. mwifiex_fw_dpc() wouldn't have released the semaphore at that point of time. mwifiex_fw_dpc() will take care of performing cleanup. > > --- > > BTW I'm gonna sidetrack us here... what's up with this code, in pcie.c? > > if (!down_interruptible(&add_remove_card_sem)) > up(&add_remove_card_sem); > > I can understand that you want to grab the semaphore for the remove > code, but why do you want to immediately release it? If you release it, > that must mean that someone else is trying to get it. And they won't > notice that you're tearing down the device... I don't see any problem in releasing the semaphore here. Only other thread which can acquire this semaphore is "init" thread. "init" thread won't get called when user is unloading the driver. The purpose of immediately releasing it is we just wanted to wait until init is completed if it's running. >(Also, why aren't you > handling the interrupted case?) The cleanup performed in this function is done without touching hardware OR referring adapter/card etc. It can be done even for the interrupted case. > > > I have updated patch description in v5 series. > > > > You are right. We may have a race between init failure and suspend > > thread. I have prepared 4th patch in my v5 series to address this. > > > > > > > > I'm going to look into converting to asynchronous device probing, > > > which might remove the need for async FW request, and would > > > therefore resolve both patch 1 and 3's races without any additional > > > complicated hacks. But I'm not sure if that will satisfy all mwifiex > > > users well enough. I'll have to give it a little more thought. Any > > > thoughts from your side, Amit? > > > > > > > This is not needed. > > Yeah, I ended up deciding this really wasn't that great of a solution. > For one, you also need to do firmware reloads for your PCIe reset > handling, and this happens in parallel to any device suspend. So: > (a) I'd bet that has plenty of race conditions and > (b) that means we can't just "load the firmware synchronously once and > forget about it" > > > 4th patch in V5 series would take care of this race. > > No, patch 4 does not handle this race, and it doesn't handle the race I > point out above either. You still can get a pointer card->adapter and > then see another thread subsequently free() it out from under you. We have used spinlock in v5 4/4 to guard "card->adapter". Please help me understand if it doesn't handle the race between "init fail" + suspend. Regards, Amitkumar Karwar.
Hi Amit, On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 03:12:44PM +0000, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@chromium.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 6:22 AM > > To: Amitkumar Karwar > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:11:31PM +0000, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@chromium.org] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:53 AM > > > > To: Amitkumar Karwar > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:36:24PM +0530, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > > index f1eeb73..ba9e068 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > > @@ -3042,6 +3042,7 @@ static void mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct > > > > mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > > > > > > pci_disable_msi(pdev); > > > > > > } > > > > > > } > > > > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > /* This function initializes the PCI-E host memory space, WCB > > > > rings, etc. > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > > index 8718950..4cad1c2 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > > @@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct > > > > > > mwifiex_adapter > > > > *adapter) > > > > > > struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card; > > > > > > > > > > > > if (adapter->card) { > > > > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > > > > sdio_claim_host(card->func); > > > > > > sdio_disable_func(card->func); > > > > > > sdio_release_host(card->func); > > > > > [...] > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > > > Actually description for this patch was ambiguous and incorrect. Sorry > > > for that. This patch doesn't fix any race. In fact, we don't have a > > > race between init and remove threads due to semaphore usage as per > > > design. This patch just adds missing "card->adapter=NULL" so that when > > > teardown/remove thread starts after init failure, it won't try freeing > > > already freed things. > > > > So to be clear, you'r talking about mwifiex_fw_dpc(), which in the error > > path > > has: > > > > if (adapter->if_ops.unregister_dev) > > adapter->if_ops.unregister_dev(adapter); <--- POINT A: > > This is where you want to set ->adapter = NULL ... > > if (init_failed) > > mwifiex_free_adapter(adapter); > > up(sem); <--- POINT B: This is where you release the semaphore, > > which is supposed to guarantee that remove() isn't happening > > return; > > } > > > > But you *do* have a race between the above code and the remove code in > > some cases. Particularly, see this: > > > > static void mwifiex_pcie_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) { > > struct pcie_service_card *card; > > struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter; > > struct mwifiex_private *priv; > > > > card = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); > > if (!card) > > return; > > > > adapter = card->adapter; <--- POINT C: This can execute at the > > same time as unregister_dev() > > if (!adapter || !adapter->priv_num) > > return; > > > > if (user_rmmod && !adapter->mfg_mode) { #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > if (adapter->is_suspended) > > mwifiex_pcie_resume(&pdev->dev); #endif > > > > mwifiex_deauthenticate_all(adapter); > > > > priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter, MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY); > > > > mwifiex_disable_auto_ds(priv); > > > > mwifiex_init_shutdown_fw(priv, MWIFIEX_FUNC_SHUTDOWN); > > } > > > > mwifiex_remove_card(card->adapter, &add_remove_card_sem); <--- > > POINT D: You only grab the semaphore here } > > > > So IIUC, you have a race **even here, where you claim the semaphore > > should protect you** such that the adapter might be freed, but you still > > can access it anywhere between C and D. i.e., you can see this: > > > > Thread 1 Thread 2 > > (1) POINT C (retrieve adapter != > > NULL) > > (2) POINT A (set adapter NULL) > > (3) POINT B (adapter has been freed) > > (3) ....Keep accessing freed > > adapter structure > > (4) POINT D - acquire semaphore, > > but we're too late > > > > Step 3 is an error, and AFAICT, that's exactly what you're trying to > > solve in this patch. It essentially comes down to the same fact: you're > > getting a reference to the adapter structure *without* any protection at > > all. Your add_remove_card_sem is *almost* the right thing to resolve > > this, but you still don't have the ordering quite right. > > Code between POINT C and POINT D won't come into picture for "init + > reboot" scenario(Case 1 below) which we are talking here. Reason is > "user_rmmod" flag will be false. Wait, but doesn't mwifiex_pcie_shutdown() set 'user_rmmod = 1'? And whether or not user_rmmod is set, you still have a problem. See below. > Basically we have 3 teardown cases > 1) System shutdown (or manually remove wifi card) -- Only mwifiex_pcie_remove() gets called. This is wrong, due to above. But that isn't key either. Still see below. > 2) User unloading the driver -- mwifiex_pcie_cleanup_module() followed by mwifiex_pcie_remove() gets called. This case is sort of OK, because you grab the semaphore first in this function. (You then release it, but that's a different problem. Probably not going to cause problems, but it still feels wrong.) > 3) Chip isn't connected. User unloaded the driver -- Only mwifiex_pcie_cleanup_module() gets > called. > > In case 2, we have already waited for semaphore in > mwifiex_pcie_cleanup_module(). So by the time we execute > mwifiex_pcie_remove(), "card->adapter" is NULL. Yes, that's (mostly) fine. > Case 3, doesn't use "card->adapter" That case is fine. But you haven't addressed 1 properly. Whether or not you have user_rmmod = 1, you still have this code that uses adapter: if (!adapter || !adapter->priv_num) return; The ->priv_num dereference can be a user-after-free. You also have the problem below which you argue is "very small." That's not a real argument. At large enough scale, "small" problems become noticeable. And with sufficiently complicated compilers and/or out-of-order parallel processors, races can become issues later, even if they aren't today. So wrong code is wrong. > > Maybe you could solve this all by acquiring the semaphore in suspend(), > > remove(), shutdown(), before you ever acquire the card->adapter? If you > > do that first (to fix the race), and only *then* do you submit the > > $subject patch, then you might have fixed all the races in question (at > > least between FW init and {suspend,resume,remove,shutdown} -- you have > > plenty of other races still, both known and unknown). > > "add_remove_card_sem" is used only for init and teardown threads as > per our design. V5 4/4 takes care of race between "init fail + > suspend". Please let us know if you see any other race situation. No, patch 4 does not handle the problem. It's almost exactly the same problem as I'm trying to describe here. But it's becoming more and more clear that you do not understand the problem here. Let's focus on this patch, and then we can try and shift our gaze to your other problems. > > > > [[ Also, a side note on POINT D: it's possible that even though you're > > retrieving card->adapter in the argument to that function call, it's > > possible the compiler will notice that this is redundant with the > > retrieval at POINT C and just use that one. But even if not, there's a > > window between "retrieve function argument" and "grab semaphore in > > mwifiex_remove_card()". ]] > > I had not considered that compiler will notice this is redundant and > use "card->adapter" assigned at POINT C. Compiler optimization isn't really the point here. Even if the compiler doesn't coalesce these dereferences, you have a problem. > But this window is very small compared to the window between in > "card->adapter = NULL" and releasing semaphore in > other(mwifiex_fw_dpc()) thread. I can't even listen to that argument. A "small window" of incorrectness is still incorrect. > Even if "card->adapter" is set to NULL in mwifiex_fw_dpc() after we > checked it at POINT C, we will return from mwifiex_remove_card() > without grabing semaphore. mwifiex_fw_dpc() wouldn't have released the > semaphore at that point of time. Did you read my sequence? Remember things are happening concurrently. But I claimed that we can have this overall interleaving of events: C -> A -> B -> D Remember that 'adapter' is freed between A and B, and the semaphore is released right at B. So D is free to both grab the semaphore and dereference the 'adapter' pointer that we read in POINT C. Note that this all works exactly the same even if POINT C is instead moved to POINT C-prime at the end of mwifiex_pcie_remove(): mwifiex_remove_card(card->adapter, <--- POINT C-prime - where we read card->adapter again &add_remove_card_sem); The key point that I hope you're understanding here is you have no synchronization between the end of the mwifiex_fw_dpc() thread and the start of grabbing your 'adapter' pointer. So even if you do some kind of synchronization *afterward*, it's pointless -- you already are planning on using a pointer to freed memory. > mwifiex_fw_dpc() will take care of performing cleanup. > > > > --- > > > > BTW I'm gonna sidetrack us here... what's up with this code, in pcie.c? > > > > if (!down_interruptible(&add_remove_card_sem)) > > up(&add_remove_card_sem); > > > > I can understand that you want to grab the semaphore for the remove > > code, but why do you want to immediately release it? If you release it, > > that must mean that someone else is trying to get it. And they won't > > notice that you're tearing down the device... > > I don't see any problem in releasing the semaphore here. Only other > thread which can acquire this semaphore is "init" thread. > "init" thread won't get called when user is unloading the driver. If no one can acquire it, then why are you releasing it? Seems unnecessary, and borderline wrong. > The purpose of immediately releasing it is we just wanted to wait > until init is completed if it's running. That's not a reason for releasing it. That's a reason for acquiring it. > >(Also, why aren't you > > handling the interrupted case?) > > The cleanup performed in this function is done without touching > hardware OR referring adapter/card etc. It can be done even for the > interrupted case. Uh, but if you're interrupted, that means you *didn't* wait for the other thread to complete. So all the safety about use-after-free that we're trying to work on gets thrown away... Seems like a case where either you don't use the interruptible version, or else you should return an error like -EBUSY. > > > I have updated patch description in v5 series. > > > > > > You are right. We may have a race between init failure and suspend > > > thread. I have prepared 4th patch in my v5 series to address this. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to look into converting to asynchronous device probing, > > > > which might remove the need for async FW request, and would > > > > therefore resolve both patch 1 and 3's races without any additional > > > > complicated hacks. But I'm not sure if that will satisfy all mwifiex > > > > users well enough. I'll have to give it a little more thought. Any > > > > thoughts from your side, Amit? > > > > > > > > > > This is not needed. > > > > Yeah, I ended up deciding this really wasn't that great of a solution. > > For one, you also need to do firmware reloads for your PCIe reset > > handling, and this happens in parallel to any device suspend. So: > > (a) I'd bet that has plenty of race conditions and > > (b) that means we can't just "load the firmware synchronously once and > > forget about it" > > > > > 4th patch in V5 series would take care of this race. > > > > No, patch 4 does not handle this race, and it doesn't handle the race I > > point out above either. You still can get a pointer card->adapter and > > then see another thread subsequently free() it out from under you. > > We have used spinlock in v5 4/4 to guard "card->adapter". > Please help me understand if it doesn't handle the race between "init fail" + suspend. I think you do. But I'll have to get to that later. We have enough problems here. Brian
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 03:12:44PM +0000, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for review. > > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@chromium.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 6:22 AM > > To: Amitkumar Karwar > > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Cathy Luo; Nishant Sarmukadam; > > rajatja@google.com; Xinming Hu; abhishekbh@google.com; Dmitry Torokhov > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mwifiex: reset card->adapter during device > > unregister > > > > Hi Amit, > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:11:31PM +0000, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@chromium.org] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:53 AM > > > > To: Amitkumar Karwar > > > > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Cathy Luo; Nishant Sarmukadam; > > > > rajatja@google.com; Xinming Hu; abhishekbh@google.com; Dmitry > > > > Torokhov > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mwifiex: reset card->adapter during > > > > device unregister > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 11:36:24PM +0530, Amitkumar Karwar wrote: > > > > > > From: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > card->adapter gets initialized during device registration. > > > > > > As it's not cleared, we may end up accessing invalid memory in > > > > > > some corner cases. This patch fixes the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@marvell.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > v4: Same as v1, v2, v3 > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c | 1 + > > > > > > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 1 + > > > > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > > index f1eeb73..ba9e068 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c > > > > > > @@ -3042,6 +3042,7 @@ static void mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct > > > > mwifiex_adapter *adapter) > > > > > > pci_disable_msi(pdev); > > > > > > } > > > > > > } > > > > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > /* This function initializes the PCI-E host memory space, WCB > > > > rings, etc. > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > > index 8718950..4cad1c2 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c > > > > > > @@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct > > > > > > mwifiex_adapter > > > > *adapter) > > > > > > struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card; > > > > > > > > > > > > if (adapter->card) { > > > > > > + card->adapter = NULL; > > > > > > sdio_claim_host(card->func); > > > > > > sdio_disable_func(card->func); > > > > > > sdio_release_host(card->func); > > > > > > > > > > As discussed on v1, I had qualms about the raciness between > > > > > reads/writes of card->adapter, but I believe we: > > > > > (a) can't have any command activity while writing the ->adapter > > > > > field (either we're just init'ing the device, or we've disabled > > > > > interrupts and are tearing it down) and > > > > > (b) can't have a race between suspend()/resume() and > > > > > unregister_dev(), since unregister_dev() is called from device > > > > > remove() (which should not be concurrent with suspend()). > > > > > > > > > > Also, I thought you had the same problem in usb.c, but in fact, > > > > > you fixed that ages ago here: > > > > > > > > > > 353d2a69ea26 mwifiex: fix issues in driver unload path for USB > > > > > chipsets > > > > > > > > > > Would be nice if fixes were bettery synchronized across the three > > > > > interface drivers you support. We seem to be discovering > > > > > unnecessary divergence on a few points recently. > > > > > > > > > > At any rate: > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> > > > > > Tested-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > Dmitry helped me re-realize my original qualms: > > > > > > > > mwifiex_unregister_dev() is called in the failure path for your > > > > async FW request, and so it may race with suspend(). So I retract my > > Reviewed-by. > > > > Sorry. > > > > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > > > Actually description for this patch was ambiguous and incorrect. Sorry > > > for that. This patch doesn't fix any race. In fact, we don't have a > > > race between init and remove threads due to semaphore usage as per > > > design. This patch just adds missing "card->adapter=NULL" so that when > > > teardown/remove thread starts after init failure, it won't try freeing > > > already freed things. > > > > So to be clear, you'r talking about mwifiex_fw_dpc(), which in the error > > path > > has: > > > > if (adapter->if_ops.unregister_dev) > > adapter->if_ops.unregister_dev(adapter); <--- POINT A: > > This is where you want to set ->adapter = NULL ... > > if (init_failed) > > mwifiex_free_adapter(adapter); > > up(sem); <--- POINT B: This is where you release the semaphore, > > which is supposed to guarantee that remove() isn't happening > > return; > > } > > > > But you *do* have a race between the above code and the remove code in > > some cases. Particularly, see this: > > > > static void mwifiex_pcie_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) { > > struct pcie_service_card *card; > > struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter; > > struct mwifiex_private *priv; > > > > card = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); > > if (!card) > > return; > > > > adapter = card->adapter; <--- POINT C: This can execute at the > > same time as unregister_dev() > > if (!adapter || !adapter->priv_num) > > return; > > > > if (user_rmmod && !adapter->mfg_mode) { #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > if (adapter->is_suspended) > > mwifiex_pcie_resume(&pdev->dev); #endif > > > > mwifiex_deauthenticate_all(adapter); > > > > priv = mwifiex_get_priv(adapter, MWIFIEX_BSS_ROLE_ANY); > > > > mwifiex_disable_auto_ds(priv); > > > > mwifiex_init_shutdown_fw(priv, MWIFIEX_FUNC_SHUTDOWN); > > } > > > > mwifiex_remove_card(card->adapter, &add_remove_card_sem); <--- > > POINT D: You only grab the semaphore here } > > > > So IIUC, you have a race **even here, where you claim the semaphore > > should protect you** such that the adapter might be freed, but you still > > can access it anywhere between C and D. i.e., you can see this: > > > > Thread 1 Thread 2 > > (1) POINT C (retrieve adapter != > > NULL) > > (2) POINT A (set adapter NULL) > > (3) POINT B (adapter has been freed) > > (3) ....Keep accessing freed > > adapter structure > > (4) POINT D - acquire semaphore, > > but we're too late > > > > Step 3 is an error, and AFAICT, that's exactly what you're trying to > > solve in this patch. It essentially comes down to the same fact: you're > > getting a reference to the adapter structure *without* any protection at > > all. Your add_remove_card_sem is *almost* the right thing to resolve > > this, but you still don't have the ordering quite right. > > Code between POINT C and POINT D won't come into picture for "init + reboot" scenario(Case 1 below) which we are talking here. Reason is "user_rmmod" flag will be false. > > Basically we have 3 teardown cases > 1) System shutdown (or manually remove wifi card) -- Only mwifiex_pcie_remove() gets called. > 2) User unloading the driver -- mwifiex_pcie_cleanup_module() followed by mwifiex_pcie_remove() gets called. > 3) Chip isn't connected. User unloaded the driver -- Only mwifiex_pcie_cleanup_module() gets > called. > > In case 2, we have already waited for semaphore in mwifiex_pcie_cleanup_module(). So by the time we execute mwifiex_pcie_remove(), "card->adapter" is NULL. > Case 3, doesn't use "card->adapter" Case 4: echo "0000:03:00.0" > /sys/bus/pci/drivers/mwifiex/unbind This does not play with the semaphore, does not resume device, does not deauthenticate calls, etc, races happily with another thread. By the way, "saving" adapter for the dump is not nice if you unbind it in the mean time. Your pcie_work may be executing after mwifiex_pcie_remove() is called. Thanks.
Hi Kalle, > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@chromium.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 10:25 PM > To: Amitkumar Karwar > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Cathy Luo; Nishant Sarmukadam; > rajatja@google.com; Xinming Hu; abhishekbh@google.com; Dmitry Torokhov > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mwifiex: reset card->adapter during device > unregister > Please ignore this patch series (and also v5) As Brian pointed out, it doesn't address race issues correctly. Xinming Hu has submitted a patch series(having 12 patches) from Brian which resolves the issues and performs some cleanup work. Regards, Amitkumar Karwar.
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c index f1eeb73..ba9e068 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c @@ -3042,6 +3042,7 @@ static void mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter) pci_disable_msi(pdev); } } + card->adapter = NULL; } /* This function initializes the PCI-E host memory space, WCB rings, etc. diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c index 8718950..4cad1c2 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c @@ -2066,6 +2066,7 @@ mwifiex_unregister_dev(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter) struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card; if (adapter->card) { + card->adapter = NULL; sdio_claim_host(card->func); sdio_disable_func(card->func); sdio_release_host(card->func);