From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>,
David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
tangmeng <tangmeng@uniontech.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: locking API: was: [PATCH printk v1 00/18] serial: 8250: implement non-BKL console
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:10:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZCMDVKy1Ir0rvi5g@alley> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a5zxger3.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
On Tue 2023-03-28 16:03:36, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2023-03-28, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> >> + if (!__serial8250_clear_IER(up, wctxt, &ier))
> >> + return false;
> >> +
> >> + if (console_exit_unsafe(wctxt)) {
> >> + can_print = atomic_print_line(up, wctxt);
> >> + if (!can_print)
> >> + atomic_console_reacquire(wctxt, &wctxt_init);
> >
> > I am trying to review the 9th patch adding console_can_proceed(),
> > console_enter_unsafe(), console_exit_unsafe() API. And I wanted
> > to see how the struct cons_write_context was actually used.
>
> First off, I need to post the latest version of the 8250-POC patch. It
> is not officially part of this series and is still going through changes
> for the PREEMPT_RT tree. I will post the latest version directly after
> answering this email.
Sure. I know that it is just a kind of POC.
> > I am confused now. I do not understand the motivation for the extra
> > @wctxt_init copy and atomic_console_reacquire().
>
> If an atomic context loses ownership while doing certain activities, it
> may need to re-acquire ownership in order to finish or cleanup what it
> started.
This sounds suspicious. If a console/writer context has lost the lock
then all shared/locked resources might already be used by the new
owner.
I would expect that the context could touch only non-shared resources after
loosing the lock.
If it re-acquires the lock then the shared resource might be in
another state. So, doing any further changes might be dangerous.
I could imagine that incrementing/decrementing some counter might
make sense but setting some value sounds strange.
> > Why do we need a copy?
>
> When ownership is lost, the context is cleared. In order to re-acquire,
> an original copy of the context is needed. There is no technical reason
> to clear the context, so maybe the context should not be cleared after a
> takeover. Otherwise, many drivers will need to implement the "backup
> copy" solution.
It might make sense to clear values that are not longer valid, e.g.
some state values or .len of the buffer. But I would keep the values
that might still be needed to re-acquire the lock. It might be
needed when the context want to re-start the entire operation,
I guess that you wanted to clean the structure to catch potential
misuse. It makes some sense but the copying is really weird.
I think that we might/should add some paranoid checks into all
functions manipulating the shared state instead.
> > And why we need to reacquire it?
>
> In this particular case the context has disabled interrupts. No other
> context will re-enable interrupts because the driver is implemented such
> that the one who disables is the one who enables. So this context must
> re-acquire ownership in order to re-enable interrupts.
My understanding is that the driver might lose the lock only
during hostile takeover. Is it safe to re-enable interrupts
in this case?
Well, it actually might make sense if the interrupts should
be enabled when the port is unused.
Well, I guess that they will get enabled by the other hostile
owner. It should leave the serial port in a good state when
it releases the lock a normal way.
Anyway, thanks a lot for the info. I still have to scratch my
head around this.
Best Regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-28 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-02 19:56 [PATCH printk v1 00/18] threaded/atomic console support John Ogness
2023-03-02 19:56 ` [PATCH printk v1 17/18] rcu: Add atomic write enforcement for rcu stalls John Ogness
2023-04-13 12:10 ` Petr Mladek
2023-03-02 19:58 ` [PATCH printk v1 00/18] serial: 8250: implement non-BKL console John Ogness
2023-03-28 13:33 ` locking API: was: " Petr Mladek
2023-03-28 13:57 ` John Ogness
2023-03-28 15:10 ` Petr Mladek [this message]
2023-03-28 21:47 ` John Ogness
2023-03-29 8:03 ` Petr Mladek
2023-03-28 13:59 ` [PATCH printk v1 00/18] POC: serial: 8250: implement nbcon console John Ogness
2023-03-09 10:55 ` [PATCH printk v1 00/18] threaded/atomic console support Daniel Thompson
2023-03-09 11:14 ` John Ogness
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=ZCMDVKy1Ir0rvi5g@alley \
--to=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=atomlin@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=gpiccoli@igalia.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jason.wessel@windriver.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=tangmeng@uniontech.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
/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).