Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1697530
| From | Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 4.4 40/57] tpm: Provide strong locking for device removal |
| Date | 2017-07-26 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u7AN3-4TN-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <u4Vbk-7Nz-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <u4Vbn-7Nz-75@gated-at.bofh.it> <u7gY1-xa-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <u7ADn-4Bn-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:56:37PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:56:01PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 13:12 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
> > >
> > > commit 4e26195f240d73150e8308ae42874702e3df8d2c upstream.
> > >
> > > Add a read/write semaphore around the ops function pointers so
> > > ops can be set to null when the driver un-registers.
> > [...]
> > > @@ -49,10 +99,10 @@ struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(int c
> > > if (chip_num != TPM_ANY_NUM && chip_num != pos->dev_num)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > - if (try_module_get(pos->dev.parent->driver->owner)) {
> > > + /* rcu prevents chip from being free'd */
> > > + if (!tpm_try_get_ops(pos))
> > [...]
> >
> > But an RCU read-side critical section is an atomic context, and
> > semaphore operations can block! Fixed upstream by:
> >
> > commit 15516788e581eb32ec1c50e5f00aba3faf95d817
> > Author: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Mon Feb 29 08:53:02 2016 -0500
> >
> > tpm: Replace device number bitmap with IDR
>
> Ugh, that's a big patch.
>
> Jason, Stefan, and Jarkko, what do you think? Should I also take this
> for 4.4-stable?
15516 is part of the series that included 4e26, I wouldn't take that
series piecemeal, as Ben observes..
I think it would be safer to avoid all these backport patches and
instead restructure the important TPM shutdown patch so that it is
'less safe'. This would mean there is a chance that the another TPM
user could send a command after shutdown, but realistically that is
not likely to happen.
Jason
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 4.4 40/57] tpm: Provide strong locking for device removal Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-07-19 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 4.4 40/57] tpm: Provide strong locking for device removal Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk> - 2017-07-26 01:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 4.4 40/57] tpm: Provide strong locking for device removal Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-07-26 22:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 4.4 40/57] tpm: Provide strong locking for device removal Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> - 2017-07-26 22:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 4.4 40/57] tpm: Provide strong locking for device removal Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-07-29 00:50 +0200
csiph-web