lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] PM-runtime: Fix __pm_runtime_set_status() race with runtime resume
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 13:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Commit 4080ab083000 ("PM-runtime: Take suppliers into account in
> __pm_runtime_set_status()") introduced a race condition that may
> trigger if __pm_runtime_set_status() is used incorrectly (that is,
> if it is called when PM-runtime is enabled for the target device
> and working).
>
> In that case, if the original PM-runtime status of the device is
> RPM_SUSPENDED, a runtime resume of the device may occur after
> __pm_runtime_set_status() has dropped its power.lock spinlock
> and before deactivating its suppliers, so the suppliers may be
> deactivated while the device is PM-runtime-active which may lead
> to functional issues.
>
> To avoid that, modify __pm_runtime_set_status() to check whether
> or not PM-runtime is enabled for the device before activating its
> suppliers (if the new status is RPM_ACTIVE) and either return an
> error if that's the case or increment the device's disable_depth
> counter to prevent PM-runtime from being enabled for it while
> the remaining part of the function is running (disable_depth is
> then decremented on the way out).
>
> Fixes: 4080ab083000 ("PM-runtime: Take suppliers into account in __pm_runtime_set_status()")
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
> @@ -1129,6 +1129,22 @@ int __pm_runtime_set_status(struct devic
> if (status != RPM_ACTIVE && status != RPM_SUSPENDED)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * Prevent PM-runtime from being enabled for the device or return an
> + * error if it is enabled already and working.
> + */
> + if (dev->power.runtime_error || dev->power.disable_depth)
> + dev->power.disable_depth++;
> + else
> + error = -EAGAIN;
> +
> + spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> +
> + if (error)
> + return error;
> +
> /*
> * If the new status is RPM_ACTIVE, the suppliers can be activated
> * upfront regardless of the current status, because next time
> @@ -1147,12 +1163,6 @@ int __pm_runtime_set_status(struct devic
>
> spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>
> - if (!dev->power.runtime_error && !dev->power.disable_depth) {
> - status = dev->power.runtime_status;
> - error = -EAGAIN;
> - goto out;
> - }
> -
> if (dev->power.runtime_status == status || !parent)
> goto out_set;
>
> @@ -1205,6 +1215,8 @@ int __pm_runtime_set_status(struct devic
> device_links_read_unlock(idx);
> }
>
> + pm_runtime_enable(dev);

pm_runtime_enable() uses spin_lock_irqsave(), rather than
spin_lock_irq() - is there a reason to why you want to allow that
here, but not earlier in the function?

> +
> return error;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__pm_runtime_set_status);
>

Other than the above comment, this looks good to me.

Kind regards
Uffe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-12 17:19    [W:0.082 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site