lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] ALSA: pcm: Fix race condition in runtime access
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 7:36 PM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:47:51 +0100,
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:24:41 +0100,
> > Chih-Yang Hsia wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:16 AM Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:17:13 +0100,
> > > > paulhsia wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since
> > > > > - snd_pcm_detach_substream sets runtime to null without stream lock and
> > > > > - snd_pcm_period_elapsed checks the nullity of the runtime outside of
> > > > > stream lock.
> > > > >
> > > > > This will trigger null memory access in snd_pcm_running() call in
> > > > > snd_pcm_period_elapsed.
> > > >
> > > > Well, if a stream is detached, it means that the stream must have been
> > > > already closed; i.e. it's already a clear bug in the driver that
> > > > snd_pcm_period_elapsed() is called against such a stream.
> > > >
> > > > Or am I missing other possible case?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Takashi
> > > >
> > >
> > > In multithreaded environment, it is possible to have to access both
> > > `interrupt_handler` (from irq) and `substream close` (from
> > > snd_pcm_release) at the same time.
> > > Therefore, in driver implementation, if "substream close function" and
> > > the "code section where snd_pcm_period_elapsed() in" do not hold the
> > > same lock, then the following things can happen:
> > >
> > > 1. interrupt_handler -> goes into snd_pcm_period_elapsed with a valid
> > > sustream pointer
> > > 2. snd_pcm_release_substream: call close without blocking
> > > 3. snd_pcm_release_substream: call snd_pcm_detache_substream and set
> > > substream->runtime to NULL
> > > 4. interrupt_handler -> call snd_pcm_runtime() and crash while
> > > accessing fields in `substream->runtime`
> > >
> > > e.g. In intel8x0.c driver for ac97 device,
> > > In driver intel8x0.c, `snd_pcm_period_elapsed` is called after
> > > checking `ichdev->substream` in `snd_intel8x0_update`.
> > > And if a `snd_pcm_release` call from alsa-lib and pass through close()
> > > and run to snd_pcm_detach_substream() in another thread, it's possible
> > > to trigger a crash.
> > > I can reproduce the issue within a multithread VM easily.
> > >
> > > My patches are trying to provide a basic protection for this situation
> > > (and internal pcm lock between detach and elapsed), since
> > > - the usage of `snd_pcm_period_elapsed` does not warn callers about
> > > the possible race if the driver does not force the order for `calling
> > > snd_pcm_period_elapsed` and `close` by lock and
> > > - lots of drivers already have this hidden issue and I can't fix them
> > > one by one (You can check the "snd_pcm_period_elapsed usage" and the
> > > "close implementation" within all the drivers). The most common
> > > mistake is that
> > > - Checking if the substream is null and call into snd_pcm_period_elapsed
> > > - But `close` can happen anytime, pass without block and
> > > snd_pcm_detach_substream will be trigger right after it
> >
> > Thanks, point taken. While this argument is valid and it's good to
> > harden the PCM core side, the concurrent calls are basically a bug,
> > and we'd need another fix in anyway. Also, the patch 2 makes little
> > sense; there can't be multiple close calls racing with each other. So
> > I'll go for taking your fix but only the first patch.
> >
> > Back to this race: the surfaced issue is, as you pointed out, the race
> > between snd_pcm_period_elapsed() vs close call. However, the
> > fundamental problem is the pending action after the PCM trigger-stop
> > call. Since the PCM trigger doesn't block nor wait until the hardware
> > actually stops the things, the driver may go to the other step even
> > after this "supposed-to-be-stopped" point. In your case, it goes up
> > to close, and crashes. If we had a sync-stop operation, the interrupt
> > handler should have finished before moving to the close stage, hence
> > such a race could be avoided.
> >
> > It's been a long known problem, and some drivers have the own
> > implementation for stop-sync. I think it's time to investigate and
> > start implementing the fundamental solution.
>
> BTW, what we need essentially for intel8x0 is to just call
> synchronize_irq() before closing, at best in hw_free procedure:
>
> --- a/sound/pci/intel8x0.c
> +++ b/sound/pci/intel8x0.c
> @@ -923,8 +923,10 @@ static int snd_intel8x0_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>
> static int snd_intel8x0_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> {
> + struct intel8x0 *chip = snd_pcm_substream_chip(substream);
> struct ichdev *ichdev = get_ichdev(substream);
>
> + synchronize_irq(chip->irq);
> if (ichdev->pcm_open_flag) {
> snd_ac97_pcm_close(ichdev->pcm);
> ichdev->pcm_open_flag = 0;
>
>
> The same would be needed also at the beginning of the prepare, as the
> application may restart the stream without release.
>
> My idea is to add sync_stop PCM ops and call it from PCM core at
> snd_pcm_prepare() and snd_pcm_hw_free().
>
Will adding synchronize_irq() in snd_pcm_hw_free there fix the race issue?
Is it possible to have sequence like the following steps ?
- [Thread 1] snd_pcm_hw_free: just pass synchronize_irq()
- [Thread 2] another interrupt come -> snd_intel8x0_update() -> goes
into the lock region of snd_pcm_period_elapsed() and passes the
PCM_RUNTIME_CHECK (right before snd_pcm_running())
- [Thread 1] snd_pcm_hw_free finished() -> snd_pcm_detach_substream()
-> runtime=NULL
- [Thread 2] Execute snd_pcm_running and crash

I can't trigger the issue after adding the synchronize_irq(), but
maybe it's just luck. Correct my if I miss something.

Thanks,
Paul




>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-14 15:17    [W:0.088 / U:1.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site