lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PM: core: Fix handling of devices deleted during system-wide resume
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 AM Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > If a device is deleted by one of its system-wide resume callbacks
> > (for example, because it does not appear to be present or accessible
> > any more) along with its children, the resume of the children may
> > continue leading to use-after-free errors and other issues
> > (potentially).
> >
> > Namely, if the device's children are resumed asynchronously, their
> > resume may have been scheduled already before the device's callback
> > runs and so the device may be deleted while dpm_wait_for_superior()
> > is being executed for them. The memory taken up by the parent device
> > object may be freed then while dpm_wait() is waiting for the parent's
> > resume callback to complete, which leads to a use-after-free.
> > Moreover, the resume of the children is really not expected to
> > continue after they have been unregistered, so it must be terminated
> > right away in that case.Seokjoo Lee <seokjoo.lee@lge.com>
> >
> > To address this problem, modify dpm_wait_for_superior() to check
> > if the target device is still there in the system-wide PM list of
> > devices and if so, to increment its parent's reference counter, both
> > under dpm_list_mtx which prevents device_del() running for the child
> > from dropping the parent's reference counter prematurely.
> >
> > If the device is not present in the system-wide PM list of devices
> > any more, the resume of it cannot continue, so check that again after
> > dpm_wait() returns, which means that the parent's callback has been
> > completed, and pass the result of that check to the caller of
> > dpm_wait_for_superior() to allow it to abort the device's resume
> > if it is not there any more.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/1579568452-27253-1-git-send-email-chanho.min@lge.com
> > Reported-by: Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/power/main.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/main.cSeokjoo Lee <seokjoo.lee@lge.com>
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/main.c20. 1. 23. 오전 8:11에 Rafael J. Wysocki 이(가) 쓴 글:
> > @@ -273,10 +273,38 @@ static void dpm_wait_for_suppliers(struc
> > device_links_read_unlock(idx);
> > }
> >
> > -static void dpm_wait_for_superior(struct device *dev, bool async)
> > +static bool dpm_wait_for_superior(struct device *dev, bool async)
> > {
> > - dpm_wait(dev->parent, async);
> > + struct device *parent;board
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the device is resumed asynchronously and the parent's callback
> > + * deletes both the device and the parent itself, the parent object may
> > + * be freed while this function is running, so avoid that by reference
> > + * counting the parent once more unless the device has been deleted
> > + * already (in which case return right away).
> > + */
> > + mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> > +
> > + if (!device_pm_initialized(dev)) {20. 1. 23. 오전 8:11에 Rafael J. Wysocki 이(가) 쓴 글:
> > + mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + parent = get_device(dev->parent);
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> > +
> > + dpm_wait(parent, async);
> > + put_device(parent);
> > +
> > dpm_wait_for_suppliers(dev, async);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the parent's callback has deleted the device, attempting to resume
> > + * it would be invalid, so avoid doing that then.
> > + */
> > + return device_pm_initialized(dev);20. 1. 23. 오전 8:11에 Rafael J. Wysocki 이(가) 쓴 글:
> > }
> >
> > static void dpm_wait_for_consumers(struct device *dev, bool async)
> > @@ -621,7 +649,8 @@ static int device_resume_noirq(struct de
> > if (!dev->power.is_noirq_suspended)
> > goto Out;
> >
> > - dpm_wait_for_superior(dev, async);
> > + if (!dpm_wait_for_superior(dev, async))
> > + goto Out;
> >
> > skip_resume = dev_pm_may_skip_resume(dev);
> >
> > @@ -829,7 +858,8 @@ static int device_resume_early(struct de
> > if (!dev->power.is_late_suspended)
> > goto Out;
> >
> > - dpm_wait_for_superior(dev, async);Seokjoo Lee <seokjoo.lee@lge.com>
> > + if (!dpm_wait_for_superior(dev, async))
> > + goto Out;
> >
> > callback = dpm_subsys_resume_early_cb(dev, state, &info);
> >
> > @@ -944,7 +974,9 @@ static int device_resume(struct device *
> > goto Complete;
> > }
> >
> > - dpm_wait_for_superior(dev, async);
> > + if (!dpm_wait_for_superior(dev, async))
> > + goto Complete;
> > +
> > dpm_watchdog_set(&wd, dev);
> > device_lock(dev);Thanks, This seems to solve the rare hang on our target.
> Actually, the problem is occurred in v4.4.
> Shouldn't it apply to -stable?

Yes, it should, but I'll add a "stable" tag later.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-23 10:25    [W:0.079 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site