Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: cang=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:30:24 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@codeaurora.org>
To:     Bean Huo <huobean@gmail.com>
Cc:     asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org,
        hongwus@codeaurora.org, ziqichen@codeaurora.org,
        rnayak@codeaurora.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com, saravanak@google.com, salyzyn@google.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@mediatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@micron.com>,
        Nitin Rawat <nitirawa@codeaurora.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: Protect PM ops and err_handler from user
 access through sysfs
In-Reply-To: <0ad818b10110c4c383afbc2c39235a4f7f17f4c7.camel@gmail.com>
References: <1609595975-12219-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <1609595975-12219-3-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org>
 <0ad818b10110c4c383afbc2c39235a4f7f17f4c7.camel@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4d1ad38dbe0235020183e474a3610294@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-01-11 00:18, Bean Huo wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-01-02 at 05:59 -0800, Can Guo wrote:
>> + * @shutting_down: flag to check if shutdown has been invoked
>> + * @host_sem: semaphore used to serialize concurrent contexts
>>   * @eh_wq: Workqueue that eh_work works on
>>   * @eh_work: Worker to handle UFS errors that require s/w attention
>>   * @eeh_work: Worker to handle exception events
>> @@ -751,7 +753,8 @@ struct ufs_hba {
>>         u32 intr_mask;
>>         u16 ee_ctrl_mask;
>>         bool is_powered;
>> -       struct semaphore eh_sem;
>> +       bool shutting_down;
>> +       struct semaphore host_sem;
>> 
>>         /* Work Queues */
>>         struct workqueue_struct *eh_wq;
>> @@ -875,6 +878,11 @@ static inline bool ufshcd_is_wb_allowed(struct
>> ufs_hba *hba)
>>         return hba->caps & UFSHCD_CAP_WB_EN;
>>  }
>> 
>> +static inline bool ufshcd_is_sysfs_allowed(struct ufs_hba *hba)
>> +{
>> +       return !hba->shutting_down;
>> +}
>> +
> 
> 
> Can,
> 
> Instead adding new shutting_down flag, can we use availible variable
> system_state?
> 
> Thanks,
> Bean

Hi Bean,

I prefer the flag shutting_down, it tells us whether ufshcd_shutdown()
has been invoked or not. It comes handy when debug some system crash
issues caused by UFS during reboot/shutdown tests. system_state is too
wide in this case.

Thanks,
Can Guo.