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;
Date:   Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:10:32 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org, james.quinlan@broadcom.com,
        Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        etienne.carriere@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        souvik.chakravarty@arm.com, igor.skalkin@opensynergy.com,
        peter.hilber@opensynergy.com, alex.bennee@linaro.org,
        jean-philippe@linaro.org, mikhail.golubev@opensynergy.com,
        anton.yakovlev@opensynergy.com, Vasyl.Vavrychuk@opensynergy.com,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Andriy.Tryshnivskyy@opensynergy.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/17] firmware: arm_scmi: Handle concurrent and
 out-of-order messages
Message-ID: <20210802101032.ozlidylogmdt2zqu@bogus>
References: <20210712141833.6628-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <20210712141833.6628-8-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210712141833.6628-8-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 03:18:23PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> Even though in case of asynchronous commands an SCMI platform server is

Drop the term "server"

> constrained to emit the delayed response message only after the related
> message response has been sent, the configured underlying transport could
> still deliver such messages together or in inverted order, causing races
> due to the concurrent or out-of-order access to the underlying xfer.
> 
> Introduce a mechanism to grant exclusive access to an xfer in order to
> properly serialize concurrent accesses to the same xfer originating from
> multiple correlated messages.
> 
> Add additional state information to xfer descriptors so as to be able to
> identify out-of-order message deliveries and act accordingly:
> 
>  - when a delayed response is expected but delivered before the related
>    response, the synchronous response is considered as successfully
>    received and the delayed response processing is carried on as usual.
> 
>  - when/if the missing synchronous response is subsequently received, it
>    is discarded as not congruent with the current state of the xfer, or
>    simply, because the xfer has been already released and so, now, the
>    monotonically increasing sequence number carried by the late response
>    is stale.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
> ---
> v5 --> v6
> - added spinlock comment
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h |  18 ++-
>  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c | 229 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 212 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h
> index 2233d0a188fc..9efebe1406d2 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/refcount.h>
>  #include <linux/scmi_protocol.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>  #include <linux/types.h>
>  
>  #include <asm/unaligned.h>
> @@ -145,6 +146,13 @@ struct scmi_msg {
>   * @pending: True for xfers added to @pending_xfers hashtable
>   * @node: An hlist_node reference used to store this xfer, alternatively, on
>   *	  the free list @free_xfers or in the @pending_xfers hashtable
> + * @busy: An atomic flag to ensure exclusive write access to this xfer
> + * @state: The current state of this transfer, with states transitions deemed
> + *	   valid being:
> + *	    - SCMI_XFER_SENT_OK -> SCMI_XFER_RESP_OK [ -> SCMI_XFER_DRESP_OK ]
> + *	    - SCMI_XFER_SENT_OK -> SCMI_XFER_DRESP_OK
> + *	      (Missing synchronous response is assumed OK and ignored)
> + * @lock: A spinlock to protect state and busy fields.
>   */
>  struct scmi_xfer {
>  	int transfer_id;
> @@ -156,6 +164,15 @@ struct scmi_xfer {
>  	refcount_t users;
>  	bool pending;
>  	struct hlist_node node;
> +#define SCMI_XFER_FREE		0
> +#define SCMI_XFER_BUSY		1
> +	atomic_t busy;
> +#define SCMI_XFER_SENT_OK	0
> +#define SCMI_XFER_RESP_OK	1
> +#define SCMI_XFER_DRESP_OK	2
> +	int state;
> +	/* A lock to protect state and busy fields */
> +	spinlock_t lock;
>  };
>  
>  /*
> @@ -392,5 +409,4 @@ bool shmem_poll_done(struct scmi_shared_mem __iomem *shmem,
>  void scmi_notification_instance_data_set(const struct scmi_handle *handle,
>  					 void *priv);
>  void *scmi_notification_instance_data_get(const struct scmi_handle *handle);
> -
>  #endif /* _SCMI_COMMON_H */
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c
> index 245ede223302..5ef33d692670 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c
> @@ -369,6 +369,7 @@ static struct scmi_xfer *scmi_xfer_get(const struct scmi_handle *handle,
>  
>  	if (!IS_ERR(xfer)) {
>  		refcount_set(&xfer->users, 1);
> +		atomic_set(&xfer->busy, SCMI_XFER_FREE);
>  		xfer->transfer_id = atomic_inc_return(&transfer_last_id);
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&minfo->xfer_lock, flags);
> @@ -430,6 +431,168 @@ scmi_xfer_lookup_unlocked(struct scmi_xfers_info *minfo, u16 xfer_id)
>  	return xfer ?: ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * scmi_msg_response_validate  - Validate message type against state of related
> + * xfer
> + *
> + * @cinfo: A reference to the channel descriptor.
> + * @msg_type: Message type to check
> + * @xfer: A reference to the xfer to validate against @msg_type
> + *
> + * This function checks if @msg_type is congruent with the current state of
> + * a pending @xfer; if an asynchronous delayed response is received before the
> + * related synchronous response (Out-of-Order Delayed Response) the missing
> + * synchronous response is assumed to be OK and completed, carrying on with the
> + * Delayed Response: this is done to address the case in which the underlying
> + * SCMI transport can deliver such out-of-order responses.
> + *
> + * Context: Assumes to be called with xfer->lock already acquired.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on Success, error otherwise
> + */
> +static inline int scmi_msg_response_validate(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo,
> +					     u8 msg_type,
> +					     struct scmi_xfer *xfer)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Even if a response was indeed expected on this slot at this point,
> +	 * a buggy platform could wrongly reply feeding us an unexpected
> +	 * delayed response we're not prepared to handle: bail-out safely
> +	 * blaming firmware.
> +	 */
> +	if (msg_type == MSG_TYPE_DELAYED_RESP && !xfer->async_done) {
> +		dev_err(cinfo->dev,
> +			"Delayed Response for %d not expected! Buggy F/W ?\n",
> +			xfer->hdr.seq);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	switch (xfer->state) {
> +	case SCMI_XFER_SENT_OK:
> +		if (msg_type == MSG_TYPE_DELAYED_RESP) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Delayed Response expected but delivered earlier.
> +			 * Assume message RESPONSE was OK and skip state.
> +			 */
> +			xfer->hdr.status = SCMI_SUCCESS;
> +			xfer->state = SCMI_XFER_RESP_OK;
> +			complete(&xfer->done);
> +			dev_warn(cinfo->dev,
> +				 "Received valid OoO Delayed Response for %d\n",
> +				 xfer->hdr.seq);
> +		}
> +		break;
> +	case SCMI_XFER_RESP_OK:
> +		if (msg_type != MSG_TYPE_DELAYED_RESP)
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		break;
> +	case SCMI_XFER_DRESP_OK:
> +		/* No further message expected once in SCMI_XFER_DRESP_OK */

Do we really need this case ? If so, how can this happen.

> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static bool scmi_xfer_is_free(struct scmi_xfer *xfer)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = atomic_cmpxchg(&xfer->busy, SCMI_XFER_FREE, SCMI_XFER_BUSY);
> +
> +	return ret == SCMI_XFER_FREE;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * scmi_xfer_command_acquire  -  Helper to lookup and acquire a command xfer
> + *
> + * @cinfo: A reference to the channel descriptor.
> + * @msg_hdr: A message header to use as lookup key
> + *
> + * When a valid xfer is found for the sequence number embedded in the provided
> + * msg_hdr, reference counting is properly updated and exclusive access to this
> + * xfer is granted till released with @scmi_xfer_command_release.
> + *
> + * Return: A valid @xfer on Success or error otherwise.
> + */
> +static inline struct scmi_xfer *
> +scmi_xfer_command_acquire(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo, u32 msg_hdr)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct scmi_xfer *xfer;
> +	struct scmi_info *info = handle_to_scmi_info(cinfo->handle);
> +	struct scmi_xfers_info *minfo = &info->tx_minfo;
> +	u8 msg_type = MSG_XTRACT_TYPE(msg_hdr);
> +	u16 xfer_id = MSG_XTRACT_TOKEN(msg_hdr);
> +
> +	/* Are we even expecting this? */
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&minfo->xfer_lock, flags);
> +	xfer = scmi_xfer_lookup_unlocked(minfo, xfer_id);
> +	if (IS_ERR(xfer)) {
> +		dev_err(cinfo->dev,
> +			"Message for %d type %d is not expected!\n",
> +			xfer_id, msg_type);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&minfo->xfer_lock, flags);
> +		return xfer;
> +	}
> +	refcount_inc(&xfer->users);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&minfo->xfer_lock, flags);
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&xfer->lock, flags);
> +	ret = scmi_msg_response_validate(cinfo, msg_type, xfer);
> +	/*
> +	 * If a pending xfer was found which was also in a congruent state with
> +	 * the received message, acquire exclusive access to it setting the busy
> +	 * flag.
> +	 * Spins only on the rare limit condition of concurrent reception of
> +	 * RESP and DRESP for the same xfer.
> +	 */
> +	if (!ret) {
> +		spin_until_cond(scmi_xfer_is_free(xfer));

I agree with the discussion between you and Peter around this, so I assume
it will be renamed or handled accordingly.

> +		xfer->hdr.type = msg_type;
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&xfer->lock, flags);
> +
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(cinfo->dev,
> +			"Invalid message type:%d for %d - HDR:0x%X  state:%d\n",
> +			msg_type, xfer_id, msg_hdr, xfer->state);
> +		/* On error the refcount incremented above has to be dropped */
> +		__scmi_xfer_put(minfo, xfer);
> +		xfer = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +	}
> +
> +	return xfer;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void scmi_xfer_command_release(struct scmi_info *info,
> +					     struct scmi_xfer *xfer)
> +{
> +	atomic_set(&xfer->busy, SCMI_XFER_FREE);
> +	__scmi_xfer_put(&info->tx_minfo, xfer);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * scmi_xfer_state_update  - Update xfer state
> + *
> + * @xfer: A reference to the xfer to update
> + *
> + * Context: Assumes to be called on an xfer exclusively acquired using the
> + *	    busy flag.
> + */
> +static inline void scmi_xfer_state_update(struct scmi_xfer *xfer)
> +{
> +	switch (xfer->hdr.type) {
> +	case MSG_TYPE_COMMAND:
> +		xfer->state = SCMI_XFER_RESP_OK;
> +		break;
> +	case MSG_TYPE_DELAYED_RESP:
> +		xfer->state = SCMI_XFER_DRESP_OK;
> +		break;
> +	}
> +}

Can't this be if () ..  else if(), switch sounds unnecessary for 2 conditions.

Other than the things already discussed with you and Peter, don't have much to
add ATM. I may look at this with fresh eyes once again in the next version.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep