On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
>> <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I am looking at this code in __ps2_command again:
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * The reset command takes a long time to execute.
>>>> */
>>>> timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(command == PS2_CMD_RESET_BAT ? 4000 : 500);
>>>>
>>>> timeout = wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>>>> !(READ_ONCE(ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD1), timeout);
>>>>
>>>> if (smp_load_acquire(&ps2dev->cmdcnt) &&
>>>> !(smp_load_acquire(&ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD1)) {
>>>> timeout = ps2_adjust_timeout(ps2dev, command, timeout);
>>>> wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>>>> !(smp_load_acquire(&ps2dev->flags) &
>>>> PS2_FLAG_CMD), timeout);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (param)
>>>> for (i = 0; i < receive; i++)
>>>> param[i] = ps2dev->cmdbuf[(receive - 1) - i];
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here are two moments I don't understand:
>>>> 1. The last parameter of ps2_adjust_timeout is timeout in jiffies (it
>>>> is compared against 100ms). However, timeout is assigned to result of
>>>> wait_event_timeout, which returns 0 or 1. This does not make sense to
>>>> me. What am I missing?
>>>
>>> The fact that wait_event_timeout can return value greater than one:
>>>
>>> * Returns:
>>> * 0 if the @condition evaluated to %false after the @timeout elapsed,
>>> * 1 if the @condition evaluated to %true after the @timeout elapsed,
>>> * or the remaining jiffies (at least 1) if the @condition evaluated
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>> OK, makes sense now!
>>
>>>> 2. This code pays great attention to timeouts, but in the end I don't
>>>> see how it handles timeouts. That is, if a timeout is happened, we
>>>> still copyout (garbage) from cmdbuf. What am I missing here?
>>>
>>> Once upon a time wait_event() did not return positive value when
>>> timeout expired and then condition satisfied. So we just examine the
>>> final state (psmpouse->cmdcnt should be 0 if command actually
>>> succeeded) and even if we copy in garbage nobody should care since
>>> we'll return error in this case.
>>
>>
>> I see.
>> But the cmdcnt is re-read after copying out response. So it is
>> possible that we read garbage response, but then read cmdcnt==0 and
>> return OK to caller.
>
> That assumes that we actually timed out, and while we were copying the
> data the response finally came.
Right.
>>
>> So far I have something along the following lines to fix data races in
>> libps2.c
>
> I don't know, maybe we should simply move call to
> serio_pause_rx(ps2dev->serio) higher, before we check ps2dev->cmdcnt,
> and move copying of the buffer down, after checking cmdcnt.
I don't know about serio_pause_rx, but copying of response should be
done after checking cmdcnt.
Also you need to use smp_store_release/smp_load_acquire cmdcnt and
flags when they have dependent data. And READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE on
shared state otherwise is highly desirable.
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c b/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c
>> index 7551699..51c747f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/serio/libps2.c
>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ int ps2_sendbyte(struct ps2dev *ps2dev, unsigned
>> char byte, int timeout)
>>
>> if (serio_write(ps2dev->serio, byte) == 0)
>> wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>> - !(ps2dev->flags & PS2_FLAG_ACK),
>> + !(READ_ONCE(ps2dev->flags) &
>> PS2_FLAG_ACK),
>> msecs_to_jiffies(timeout));
>>
>> serio_pause_rx(ps2dev->serio);
>> @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ int __ps2_command(struct ps2dev *ps2dev, unsigned
>> char *param, int command)
>> int receive = (command >> 8) & 0xf;
>> int rc = -1;
>> int i;
>> + unsigned char cmdcnt;
>>
>> if (receive > sizeof(ps2dev->cmdbuf)) {
>> WARN_ON(1);
>> @@ -225,23 +226,22 @@ int __ps2_command(struct ps2dev *ps2dev,
>> unsigned char *param, int command)
>> timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(command == PS2_CMD_RESET_BAT ? 4000 :
>> 500);
>>
>> timeout = wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>> - !(ps2dev->flags &
>> PS2_FLAG_CMD1), timeout);
>> -
>> - if (ps2dev->cmdcnt && !(ps2dev->flags & PS2_FLAG_CMD1)) {
>> + !(READ_ONCE(ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD1), timeout);
>>
>> + if (READ_ONCE(&ps2dev->cmdcnt) &&
>> + !(READ_ONCE(&ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD1)) {
>> timeout = ps2_adjust_timeout(ps2dev, command, timeout);
>> wait_event_timeout(ps2dev->wait,
>> - !(ps2dev->flags & PS2_FLAG_CMD),
>> timeout);
>> + !(READ_ONCE(&ps2dev->flags) & PS2_FLAG_CMD),
>> timeout);
>
> What all these READ_ONCE()s give us?
I've wrote up the response here:
https://github.com/google/ktsan/wiki/READ_ONCE-and-WRITE_ONCE
>By the way, please either drop ktsan group from public postngs or open
it to post from public.
Sorry, should be public now.
--
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/
