Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <c6835aae95dd18da35795d2231e9326e0d21b60b.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] s390/ism: Fix locking for forwarding of IRQs and
 events to clients
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com>,
        Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jan Karcher <jaka@linux.ibm.com>,
        Stefan Raspl <raspl@linux.ibm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     Julian Ruess <julianr@linux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:47:50 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20230705121722.2700998-1-schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20230705121722.2700998-1-schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2023-07-05 at 14:17 +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> The clients array references all registered clients and is protected by
> the clients_lock. Besides its use as general list of clients the clients
> array is accessed in ism_handle_irq() to forward IRQs and events to
> clients. This use in an interrupt handler thus requires all code that
> takes the clients_lock to be IRQ save.
>=20
> This is problematic since the add() and remove() callbacks which are
> called for all clients when an ISM device is added or removed cannot be
> called directly while iterating over the clients array and holding the
> clients_lock since clients need to allocate and/or take mutexes in these
> callbacks. To deal with this the calls get pushed to workqueues with
> additional housekeeping to be able to wait for the completion outside
> the clients_lock.
>=20
> Moreover while the clients_lock is taken in the IRQ handler when calling
> handle_event() it is incorrectly not held during the
> client->handle_irq() call and for the preceding clients[] access. This
> leaves the clients array unprotected. Similarly the accesses to
> ism->sba_client_arr[] in ism_register_dmb() and ism_unregister_dmb() are
> also not protected by any lock. This is especially problematic as the
> the client ID from the ism->sba_client_arr[] is not checked against
> NO_CLIENT.
>=20
> Instead of expanding the use of the clients_lock further add a separate
> array in struct ism_dev which references clients subscribed to the
> device's events and IRQs. This array is protected by ism->lock which is
> already taken in ism_handle_irq() and can be taken outside the IRQ
> handler when adding/removing subscribers or the accessing
> ism->sba_client_arr[].
>=20
> With the clients_lock no longer accessed from IRQ context it is turned
> into a mutex and the add and remove workqueues plus their housekeeping
> can be removed in favor of simple direct calls.
>=20
> Fixes: 89e7d2ba61b7 ("net/ism: Add new API for client registration")
> Tested-by: Julian Ruess <julianr@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Julian Ruess <julianr@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> Note: I realize this is a rather large patch. So I'd understand if it's n=
ot
> acceptable as is and needs to be broken up. That said it removes more lin=
es
> than it adds and the complexity of the resulting code is in my opinion re=
duced.

This is indeed unusually large for a -net patch. IMHO it would be
better split it in 2 separated patches: 1 introducing the ism->lock and
one turning the clients_lock in a mutex. The series should still target
-net, but should be more easily reviewable.

Thanks,

Paolo