Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
To:     Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc:     Kalle Vallo <kvalo@kernel.org>,
        syzbot+f2cb6e0ffdb961921e4d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@ispras.ru>,
        lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] wifi: ath9k: fix races between ath9k_wmi_cmd and
 ath9k_wmi_ctrl_rx
In-Reply-To: <20230426190206.ni2au5mpjc5oty67@fpc>
References: <20230425192607.18015-1-pchelkin@ispras.ru>
 <20230425230708.2132-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <20230426190206.ni2au5mpjc5oty67@fpc>
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2023 14:06:38 +0200
Message-ID: <87ttwddcj5.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 07:07:08AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: 
>> Given similar wait timeout[1], just taking lock on the waiter side is not
>> enough wrt fixing the race, because in case job done on the waker side,
>> waiter needs to wait again after timeout.
>> 
>
> As I understand you correctly, you mean the case when a timeout occurs
> during ath9k_wmi_ctrl_rx() callback execution. I suppose if a timeout has
> occurred on a waiter's side, it should return immediately and doesn't have
> to care in which state the callback has been at that moment.
>
> AFAICS, this is controlled properly with taking a wmi_lock on waiter and
> waker sides, and there is no data corruption.
>
> If a callback has not managed to do its work entirely (performing a
> completion and subsequently waking waiting thread is included here), then,
> well, it is considered a timeout, in my opinion.
>
> Your suggestion makes a wmi_cmd call to give a little more chance for the
> belated callback to complete (although timeout has actually expired). That
> is probably good, but increasing a timeout value makes that job, too. I
> don't think it makes any sense on real hardware.
>
> Or do you mean there is data corruption that is properly fixed with your
> patch?
>
> That is, I agree there can be a situation when a callback makes all the
> logical work it should and it just hasn't got enough time to perform a
> completion before a timeout on waiter's side occurs. And this behaviour
> can be named "racy". But, technically, this seems to be a rather valid
> timeout.
>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9d9b9652-c1ac-58e9-2eab-9256c17b1da2@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp/
>> 
>
> I don't think it's a similar case because wait_for_completion_state() is
> interruptible while wait_for_completion_timeout() is not.

Ping, Hillf?

-Toke