On Sunday, February 02, 2014 01:54:02 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>
> There is a slight possibility for the ACPI device object pointed to
> by adev in acpi_hotplug_notify_cb() to become invalid between the
> acpi_bus_get_device() that it comes from and the subsequent get_device().
> Namely, if acpi_scan_drop_device() runs concurrently with respect to
> acpi_hotplug_notify_cb() and acpi_device_del_list is not empty,
> acpi_device_del_work_fn() may delete the device object in question
> without waiting for the ACPI events workqueue to drain, which very
> well may happen right after a successful execution of
> acpi_bus_get_device() in acpi_hotplug_notify_cb().
>
> To prevent that from happening, run acpi_bus_get_device() and the
> subsequent get_device() in acpi_hotplug_notify_cb() under
> acpi_device_del_lock, so that the deletion of the given device
> object cannot be queued up by acpi_scan_drop_device() between the
> two.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/scan.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/scan.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_scan_lock);
> static LIST_HEAD(acpi_scan_handlers_list);
> DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_device_lock);
> LIST_HEAD(acpi_wakeup_device_list);
> +static LIST_HEAD(acpi_device_del_list);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(acpi_device_del_lock);
>
> struct acpi_device_bus_id{
> char bus_id[15];
> @@ -488,9 +490,6 @@ static void acpi_hotplug_notify_cb(acpi_
> struct acpi_device *adev;
> acpi_status status;
>
> - if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &adev))
> - goto err_out;
> -
> switch (type) {
> case ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK:
> acpi_handle_debug(handle, "ACPI_NOTIFY_BUS_CHECK event\n");
> @@ -512,7 +511,13 @@ static void acpi_hotplug_notify_cb(acpi_
> /* non-hotplug event; possibly handled by other handler */
> return;
> }
> + mutex_lock(&acpi_device_del_lock);
> + if (acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &adev)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&acpi_device_del_lock);
> + goto err_out;
> + }
> get_device(&adev->dev);
> + mutex_unlock(&acpi_device_del_lock);
> status = acpi_hotplug_execute(acpi_device_hotplug, adev, type);
> if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
> return;
Well, that would have been good if it hand't been broken. :-(
acpi_scan_drop_device() which acquires acpi_device_del_lock is called under
the ACPICA's namespace mutex and acpi_bus_get_device() above acquires that
mutex, so this leads to a classical ABBA deadlock scenario. Bummer.
And I haven't been able to convince myself that what we're doing in
acpi_hotplug_notify_cb() is actually safe without any locking. Not to
mention acpi_bus_notify() for that matter. Moreover, the *only* safe
way to do that I'm seeing at the moment is to call the get_device()
under the ACPICA's namespace mutex, before it is released in
acpi_get_data().
Of course, ACPICA will need to be modified slightly for that to be
possible (sorry, Bob), but at least that *should* work, so I have a
new version of this patchset doing just that. I'll send it out
shortly.
Thanks!
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
