From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@intel.com>
Cc: "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>, Lv Zheng <zetalog@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 22:43:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2006722.863OfZUBRq@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E886CE9D136@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On Thursday, May 04, 2017 07:18:28 AM Zheng, Lv wrote:
> Hi, Rafael
>
> > From: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Rafael J.
> > Wysocki
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage
> > acpi_get_table() independently
> >
> > On Friday, April 28, 2017 01:30:20 PM Lv Zheng wrote:
> > > For all frequent late stage acpi_get_table() clone invocations, we should
> > > only fix them altogether, otherwise, excessive acpi_put_table() could
> > > unexpectedly unmap the table used by the other users. Thus the current plan
> > > is to fix all acpi_get_table() clones together or to fix none of them.
> >
> > I honestly don't think that fixing none of them is a valid option here.
>
> That's just exactly the old behavior, maybe shouldn't be called as "fix".
> Should say "change to use the new behavior together" all stay unchanged.
>
> I actually want to make the change from ACPICA side.
> But it's costly to persuade ACPICA upstream to take both the "acpi_get_table_with_size()/early_acpi_os_unmap_memory() divergence reduction" change and the "table map on-demand" change.
>
> So we just made 2 things separated, and did 1 thing once.
>
> >
> > > This prevents kernel developers from improving the late stage code quality
> > > without waiting for the ACPICA upstream to improve first.
> > >
> > > This patch adds a mechanism to stop decrementing validation count to
> > > prevent the table unmapping operations so that acpi_put_table() balance
> > > fixes can be done independently to each others.
> > >
> > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c | 10 ++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > > index 7abe665..b517bd0 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/tbutils.c
> > > @@ -445,12 +445,18 @@ void acpi_tb_put_table(struct acpi_table_desc *table_desc)
> > >
> > > ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE(acpi_tb_put_table);
> > >
> > > - if (table_desc->validation_count == 0) {
> > > + if ((table_desc->validation_count + 1) == 0) {
> >
> > This means that validation_count has reached the maximum value, right?
> >
> > > ACPI_WARNING((AE_INFO,
> > > - "Table %p, Validation count is zero before decrement\n",
> > > + "Table %p, Validation count is about to expire, decrement is unsafe\n",
> > > table_desc));
> >
> > So why is it unsafe to decrement it?
>
> Considering this case:
> A program opens a sysfs table file 65535 times: validation_count = 65535.
> Load opcode is invoked by the AML interpreter, but it cannot increase the validation count, see acpi_tb_get_table(): validation_count = 65535.
> Now the program closes the sysfs table file: validation_count = 0, which triggers table unmap.
> But it is likely that the AML code is still accessing the namespace objects provided by this table.
> A kernel crash then can be seen.
>
> So after applying this patch, 65535 now is the threshold.
OK, so this is overflow detection in disguise. :-)
It is quite confusing, IMO. It would be better to define a limit symbol like
ACPI_TABLE_VCOUNT_MAX below the natural maximum of the data type
(say, make it equal to 65534 if the data type is unsigned short int) and then
make *both* acpi_tb_get_table() and acpi_tb_put_table() refuse to update
validation_count *and* print a "validation count overflow" message once it
has become greater than ACPI_TABLE_VCOUNT_MAX (in which case it will
natrually stay at ACPI_TABLE_VCOUNT_MAX+1).
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-05 20:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-27 8:22 [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling Lv Zheng
2017-04-27 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] ACPI: Fix memory mapping leaks in current sysfs dumpable ACPI tables support Lv Zheng
2017-04-27 22:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-04-27 22:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-04-28 1:24 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-04-28 3:57 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-04-28 5:27 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] " Lv Zheng
2017-04-28 5:28 ` [PATCH v3 " Lv Zheng
2017-04-28 5:30 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently Lv Zheng
2017-04-28 20:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-05-04 7:18 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-05-04 15:45 ` Dan Williams
2017-05-05 0:53 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-05-05 20:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2017-05-09 1:58 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-04-28 5:30 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] ACPI: sysfs: Fix acpi_get_table() leak Lv Zheng
2017-04-28 5:30 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] ACPI: Fix memory mapping leaks in current sysfs dumpable ACPI tables support Lv Zheng
2017-05-09 5:57 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] ACPICA: Tables: Fix regression introduced by a too early mechanism enabling Lv Zheng
2017-05-09 5:57 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently Lv Zheng
2017-05-12 21:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-05-12 21:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-05-15 6:32 ` Zheng, Lv
2017-05-09 5:57 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] ACPI: sysfs: Fix acpi_get_table() leak Lv Zheng
2017-05-09 5:57 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] ACPI: Fix memory mapping leaks in current sysfs dumpable ACPI tables support Lv Zheng
2017-06-12 13:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-06-07 4:54 ` [PATCH v5] ACPICA: Tables: Add mechanism to allow to balance late stage acpi_get_table() independently Lv Zheng
2017-06-07 6:41 ` Dan Williams
2017-06-07 21:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-06-07 21:24 ` Dan Williams
2017-06-08 2:24 ` Zheng, Lv
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=2006722.863OfZUBRq@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=zetalog@gmail.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).