linux/rust/kernel/devres.rs

361 lines
13 KiB
Rust
Raw Permalink Normal View History

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
//! Devres abstraction
//!
//! [`Devres`] represents an abstraction for the kernel devres (device resource management)
//! implementation.
use crate::{
alloc::Flags,
bindings,
device::{Bound, Device},
error::{to_result, Error, Result},
ffi::c_void,
prelude::*,
revocable::{Revocable, RevocableGuard},
sync::{rcu, Completion},
types::{ARef, ForeignOwnable, Opaque, ScopeGuard},
};
use pin_init::Wrapper;
/// [`Devres`] inner data accessed from [`Devres::callback`].
#[pin_data]
struct Inner<T: Send> {
#[pin]
data: Revocable<T>,
/// Tracks whether [`Devres::callback`] has been completed.
#[pin]
devm: Completion,
/// Tracks whether revoking [`Self::data`] has been completed.
rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop() In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the wrapped device resource. The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the corresponding device being bound to a driver. However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30 ("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been (partially) present from the initial version on. In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs. However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. CPU0 CPU1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Devres::drop() { Devres::devres_callback() { self.data.revoke() { this.data.revoke() { is_available.swap() == true is_available.swap == false } } // [...] // device fully unbound drop_in_place() { // release device resource } } } Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to user-after-free bugs. In order to fix this, implement the following logic. In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true. If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(), concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource. Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not be any additional overhead from that. (Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.) In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not* successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good. Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful, means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully. If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device resource has been revoked by us, using the completion. This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point of time, which is one of the design goals. Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/ Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
2025-06-12 14:17:15 +02:00
#[pin]
revoke: Completion,
}
/// This abstraction is meant to be used by subsystems to containerize [`Device`] bound resources to
/// manage their lifetime.
///
/// [`Device`] bound resources should be freed when either the resource goes out of scope or the
rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop() In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the wrapped device resource. The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the corresponding device being bound to a driver. However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30 ("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been (partially) present from the initial version on. In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs. However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. CPU0 CPU1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Devres::drop() { Devres::devres_callback() { self.data.revoke() { this.data.revoke() { is_available.swap() == true is_available.swap == false } } // [...] // device fully unbound drop_in_place() { // release device resource } } } Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to user-after-free bugs. In order to fix this, implement the following logic. In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true. If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(), concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource. Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not be any additional overhead from that. (Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.) In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not* successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good. Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful, means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully. If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device resource has been revoked by us, using the completion. This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point of time, which is one of the design goals. Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/ Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
2025-06-12 14:17:15 +02:00
/// [`Device`] is unbound respectively, depending on what happens first. In any case, it is always
/// guaranteed that revoking the device resource is completed before the corresponding [`Device`]
/// is unbound.
///
/// To achieve that [`Devres`] registers a devres callback on creation, which is called once the
/// [`Device`] is unbound, revoking access to the encapsulated resource (see also [`Revocable`]).
///
/// After the [`Devres`] has been unbound it is not possible to access the encapsulated resource
/// anymore.
///
/// [`Devres`] users should make sure to simply free the corresponding backing resource in `T`'s
/// [`Drop`] implementation.
///
/// # Examples
///
/// ```no_run
/// # use kernel::{bindings, device::{Bound, Device}, devres::Devres, io::{Io, IoRaw}};
/// # use core::ops::Deref;
///
/// // See also [`pci::Bar`] for a real example.
/// struct IoMem<const SIZE: usize>(IoRaw<SIZE>);
///
/// impl<const SIZE: usize> IoMem<SIZE> {
/// /// # Safety
/// ///
/// /// [`paddr`, `paddr` + `SIZE`) must be a valid MMIO region that is mappable into the CPUs
/// /// virtual address space.
/// unsafe fn new(paddr: usize) -> Result<Self>{
/// // SAFETY: By the safety requirements of this function [`paddr`, `paddr` + `SIZE`) is
/// // valid for `ioremap`.
2025-06-15 16:55:08 -04:00
/// let addr = unsafe { bindings::ioremap(paddr as bindings::phys_addr_t, SIZE) };
/// if addr.is_null() {
/// return Err(ENOMEM);
/// }
///
2025-06-15 16:55:08 -04:00
/// Ok(IoMem(IoRaw::new(addr as usize, SIZE)?))
/// }
/// }
///
/// impl<const SIZE: usize> Drop for IoMem<SIZE> {
/// fn drop(&mut self) {
/// // SAFETY: `self.0.addr()` is guaranteed to be properly mapped by `Self::new`.
2025-06-15 16:55:08 -04:00
/// unsafe { bindings::iounmap(self.0.addr() as *mut c_void); };
/// }
/// }
///
/// impl<const SIZE: usize> Deref for IoMem<SIZE> {
/// type Target = Io<SIZE>;
///
/// fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target {
/// // SAFETY: The memory range stored in `self` has been properly mapped in `Self::new`.
/// unsafe { Io::from_raw(&self.0) }
/// }
/// }
/// # fn no_run(dev: &Device<Bound>) -> Result<(), Error> {
/// // SAFETY: Invalid usage for example purposes.
/// let iomem = unsafe { IoMem::<{ core::mem::size_of::<u32>() }>::new(0xBAAAAAAD)? };
/// let devres = KBox::pin_init(Devres::new(dev, iomem), GFP_KERNEL)?;
///
/// let res = devres.try_access().ok_or(ENXIO)?;
/// res.write8(0x42, 0x0);
/// # Ok(())
/// # }
/// ```
///
/// # Invariants
///
/// [`Self::inner`] is guaranteed to be initialized and is always accessed read-only.
#[pin_data(PinnedDrop)]
pub struct Devres<T: Send> {
dev: ARef<Device>,
/// Pointer to [`Self::devres_callback`].
///
/// Has to be stored, since Rust does not guarantee to always return the same address for a
/// function. However, the C API uses the address as a key.
callback: unsafe extern "C" fn(*mut c_void),
/// Contains all the fields shared with [`Self::callback`].
// TODO: Replace with `UnsafePinned`, once available.
//
// Subsequently, the `drop_in_place()` in `Devres::drop` and the explicit `Send` and `Sync'
// impls can be removed.
#[pin]
inner: Opaque<Inner<T>>,
}
impl<T: Send> Devres<T> {
/// Creates a new [`Devres`] instance of the given `data`.
///
/// The `data` encapsulated within the returned `Devres` instance' `data` will be
/// (revoked)[`Revocable`] once the device is detached.
pub fn new<'a, E>(
dev: &'a Device<Bound>,
data: impl PinInit<T, E> + 'a,
) -> impl PinInit<Self, Error> + 'a
where
T: 'a,
Error: From<E>,
{
let callback = Self::devres_callback;
try_pin_init!(&this in Self {
dev: dev.into(),
callback,
// INVARIANT: `inner` is properly initialized.
inner <- {
// SAFETY: `this` is a valid pointer to uninitialized memory.
let inner = unsafe { &raw mut (*this.as_ptr()).inner };
// SAFETY:
// - `dev.as_raw()` is a pointer to a valid bound device.
// - `inner` is guaranteed to be a valid for the duration of the lifetime of `Self`.
// - `devm_add_action()` is guaranteed not to call `callback` until `this` has been
// properly initialized, because we require `dev` (i.e. the *bound* device) to
// live at least as long as the returned `impl PinInit<Self, Error>`.
to_result(unsafe {
bindings::devm_add_action(dev.as_raw(), Some(callback), inner.cast())
})?;
Opaque::pin_init(try_pin_init!(Inner {
devm <- Completion::new(),
revoke <- Completion::new(),
data <- Revocable::new(data),
}))
},
})
}
fn inner(&self) -> &Inner<T> {
// SAFETY: By the type invairants of `Self`, `inner` is properly initialized and always
// accessed read-only.
unsafe { &*self.inner.get() }
}
fn data(&self) -> &Revocable<T> {
&self.inner().data
}
#[allow(clippy::missing_safety_doc)]
unsafe extern "C" fn devres_callback(ptr: *mut kernel::ffi::c_void) {
// SAFETY: In `Self::new` we've passed a valid pointer to `Inner` to `devm_add_action()`,
// hence `ptr` must be a valid pointer to `Inner`.
let inner = unsafe { &*ptr.cast::<Inner<T>>() };
// Ensure that `inner` can't be used anymore after we signal completion of this callback.
let inner = ScopeGuard::new_with_data(inner, |inner| inner.devm.complete_all());
rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop() In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the wrapped device resource. The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the corresponding device being bound to a driver. However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30 ("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been (partially) present from the initial version on. In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs. However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. CPU0 CPU1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Devres::drop() { Devres::devres_callback() { self.data.revoke() { this.data.revoke() { is_available.swap() == true is_available.swap == false } } // [...] // device fully unbound drop_in_place() { // release device resource } } } Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to user-after-free bugs. In order to fix this, implement the following logic. In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true. If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(), concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource. Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not be any additional overhead from that. (Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.) In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not* successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good. Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful, means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully. If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device resource has been revoked by us, using the completion. This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point of time, which is one of the design goals. Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/ Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
2025-06-12 14:17:15 +02:00
if !inner.data.revoke() {
// If `revoke()` returns false, it means that `Devres::drop` already started revoking
// `data` for us. Hence we have to wait until `Devres::drop` signals that it
// completed revoking `data`.
rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop() In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the wrapped device resource. The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the corresponding device being bound to a driver. However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30 ("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been (partially) present from the initial version on. In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs. However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. CPU0 CPU1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Devres::drop() { Devres::devres_callback() { self.data.revoke() { this.data.revoke() { is_available.swap() == true is_available.swap == false } } // [...] // device fully unbound drop_in_place() { // release device resource } } } Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to user-after-free bugs. In order to fix this, implement the following logic. In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true. If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(), concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource. Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not be any additional overhead from that. (Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.) In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not* successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good. Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful, means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully. If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device resource has been revoked by us, using the completion. This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point of time, which is one of the design goals. Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/ Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
2025-06-12 14:17:15 +02:00
inner.revoke.wait_for_completion();
}
}
fn remove_action(&self) -> bool {
// SAFETY:
// - `self.dev` is a valid `Device`,
// - the `action` and `data` pointers are the exact same ones as given to
// `devm_add_action()` previously,
(unsafe {
bindings::devm_remove_action_nowarn(
self.dev.as_raw(),
Some(self.callback),
core::ptr::from_ref(self.inner()).cast_mut().cast(),
)
} == 0)
}
/// Return a reference of the [`Device`] this [`Devres`] instance has been created with.
pub fn device(&self) -> &Device {
&self.dev
}
/// Obtain `&'a T`, bypassing the [`Revocable`].
///
/// This method allows to directly obtain a `&'a T`, bypassing the [`Revocable`], by presenting
/// a `&'a Device<Bound>` of the same [`Device`] this [`Devres`] instance has been created with.
///
/// # Errors
///
/// An error is returned if `dev` does not match the same [`Device`] this [`Devres`] instance
/// has been created with.
///
/// # Examples
///
/// ```no_run
/// # #![cfg(CONFIG_PCI)]
/// # use kernel::{device::Core, devres::Devres, pci};
///
/// fn from_core(dev: &pci::Device<Core>, devres: Devres<pci::Bar<0x4>>) -> Result {
/// let bar = devres.access(dev.as_ref())?;
///
/// let _ = bar.read32(0x0);
///
/// // might_sleep()
///
/// bar.write32(0x42, 0x0);
///
/// Ok(())
/// }
/// ```
pub fn access<'a>(&'a self, dev: &'a Device<Bound>) -> Result<&'a T> {
if self.dev.as_raw() != dev.as_raw() {
return Err(EINVAL);
}
// SAFETY: `dev` being the same device as the device this `Devres` has been created for
// proves that `self.data` hasn't been revoked and is guaranteed to not be revoked as long
// as `dev` lives; `dev` lives at least as long as `self`.
Ok(unsafe { self.data().access() })
}
/// [`Devres`] accessor for [`Revocable::try_access`].
pub fn try_access(&self) -> Option<RevocableGuard<'_, T>> {
self.data().try_access()
}
/// [`Devres`] accessor for [`Revocable::try_access_with`].
pub fn try_access_with<R, F: FnOnce(&T) -> R>(&self, f: F) -> Option<R> {
self.data().try_access_with(f)
}
/// [`Devres`] accessor for [`Revocable::try_access_with_guard`].
pub fn try_access_with_guard<'a>(&'a self, guard: &'a rcu::Guard) -> Option<&'a T> {
self.data().try_access_with_guard(guard)
}
}
// SAFETY: `Devres` can be send to any task, if `T: Send`.
unsafe impl<T: Send> Send for Devres<T> {}
// SAFETY: `Devres` can be shared with any task, if `T: Sync`.
unsafe impl<T: Send + Sync> Sync for Devres<T> {}
#[pinned_drop]
impl<T: Send> PinnedDrop for Devres<T> {
fn drop(self: Pin<&mut Self>) {
rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop() In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the wrapped device resource. The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the corresponding device being bound to a driver. However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30 ("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been (partially) present from the initial version on. In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs. However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. CPU0 CPU1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Devres::drop() { Devres::devres_callback() { self.data.revoke() { this.data.revoke() { is_available.swap() == true is_available.swap == false } } // [...] // device fully unbound drop_in_place() { // release device resource } } } Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to user-after-free bugs. In order to fix this, implement the following logic. In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true. If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(), concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource. Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not be any additional overhead from that. (Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.) In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not* successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good. Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful, means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully. If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device resource has been revoked by us, using the completion. This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point of time, which is one of the design goals. Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/ Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
2025-06-12 14:17:15 +02:00
// SAFETY: When `drop` runs, it is guaranteed that nobody is accessing the revocable data
// anymore, hence it is safe not to wait for the grace period to finish.
if unsafe { self.data().revoke_nosync() } {
// We revoked `self.data` before the devres action did, hence try to remove it.
if !self.remove_action() {
rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop() In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the wrapped device resource. The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the corresponding device being bound to a driver. However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30 ("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been (partially) present from the initial version on. In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs. However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. CPU0 CPU1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Devres::drop() { Devres::devres_callback() { self.data.revoke() { this.data.revoke() { is_available.swap() == true is_available.swap == false } } // [...] // device fully unbound drop_in_place() { // release device resource } } } Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to user-after-free bugs. In order to fix this, implement the following logic. In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true. If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(), concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource. Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not be any additional overhead from that. (Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.) In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not* successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good. Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful, means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully. If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device resource has been revoked by us, using the completion. This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point of time, which is one of the design goals. Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/ Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
2025-06-12 14:17:15 +02:00
// We could not remove the devres action, which means that it now runs concurrently,
// hence signal that `self.data` has been revoked by us successfully.
self.inner().revoke.complete_all();
// Wait for `Self::devres_callback` to be done using this object.
self.inner().devm.wait_for_completion();
rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop() In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the wrapped device resource. The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the corresponding device being bound to a driver. However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30 ("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been (partially) present from the initial version on. In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs. However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. CPU0 CPU1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Devres::drop() { Devres::devres_callback() { self.data.revoke() { this.data.revoke() { is_available.swap() == true is_available.swap == false } } // [...] // device fully unbound drop_in_place() { // release device resource } } } Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to user-after-free bugs. In order to fix this, implement the following logic. In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true. If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(), concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource. Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not be any additional overhead from that. (Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.) In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not* successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good. Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful, means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully. If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device resource has been revoked by us, using the completion. This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point of time, which is one of the design goals. Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/ Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
2025-06-12 14:17:15 +02:00
}
} else {
// `Self::devres_callback` revokes `self.data` for us, hence wait for it to be done
// using this object.
self.inner().devm.wait_for_completion();
rust: devres: fix race in Devres::drop() In Devres::drop() we first remove the devres action and then drop the wrapped device resource. The design goal is to give the owner of a Devres object control over when the device resource is dropped, but limit the overall scope to the corresponding device being bound to a driver. However, there's a race that was introduced with commit 8ff656643d30 ("rust: devres: remove action in `Devres::drop`"), but also has been (partially) present from the initial version on. In Devres::drop(), the devres action is removed successfully and subsequently the destructor of the wrapped device resource runs. However, there is no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. If in Devres::drop(), the devres action can't be removed, it means that the devres callback has been executed already, or is still running concurrently. In case of the latter, either Devres::drop() wins revoking the Revocable or the devres callback wins revoking the Revocable. If Devres::drop() wins, we (again) have no guarantee that the destructor of the wrapped device resource completes before the driver core is done unbinding the corresponding device. CPU0 CPU1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Devres::drop() { Devres::devres_callback() { self.data.revoke() { this.data.revoke() { is_available.swap() == true is_available.swap == false } } // [...] // device fully unbound drop_in_place() { // release device resource } } } Depending on the specific device resource, this can potentially lead to user-after-free bugs. In order to fix this, implement the following logic. In the devres callback, we're always good when we get to revoke the device resource ourselves, i.e. Revocable::revoke() returns true. If Revocable::revoke() returns false, it means that Devres::drop(), concurrently, already drops the device resource and we have to wait for Devres::drop() to signal that it finished dropping the device resource. Note that if we hit the case where we need to wait for the completion of Devres::drop() in the devres callback, it means that we're actually racing with a concurrent Devres::drop() call, which already started revoking the device resource for us. This is rather unlikely and means that the concurrent Devres::drop() already started doing our work and we just need to wait for it to complete it for us. Hence, there should not be any additional overhead from that. (Actually, for now it's even better if Devres::drop() does the work for us, since it can bypass the synchronize_rcu() call implied by Revocable::revoke(), but this goes away anyways once I get to implement the split devres callback approach, which allows us to first flip the atomics of all registered Devres objects of a certain device, execute a single synchronize_rcu() and then drop all revocable objects.) In Devres::drop() we try to revoke the device resource. If that is *not* successful, it means that the devres callback already did and we're good. Otherwise, we try to remove the devres action, which, if successful, means that we're good, since the device resource has just been revoked by us *before* we removed the devres action successfully. If the devres action could not be removed, it means that the devres callback must be running concurrently, hence we signal that the device resource has been revoked by us, using the completion. This makes it safe to drop a Devres object from any task and at any point of time, which is one of the design goals. Fixes: 76c01ded724b ("rust: add devres abstraction") Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aD64YNuqbPPZHAa5@google.com/ Reviewed-by: Benno Lossin <lossin@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250612121817.1621-4-dakr@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
2025-06-12 14:17:15 +02:00
}
// INVARIANT: At this point it is guaranteed that `inner` can't be accessed any more.
//
// SAFETY: `inner` is valid for dropping.
unsafe { core::ptr::drop_in_place(self.inner.get()) };
}
}
/// Consume `data` and [`Drop::drop`] `data` once `dev` is unbound.
fn register_foreign<P>(dev: &Device<Bound>, data: P) -> Result
where
P: ForeignOwnable + Send + 'static,
{
let ptr = data.into_foreign();
#[allow(clippy::missing_safety_doc)]
unsafe extern "C" fn callback<P: ForeignOwnable>(ptr: *mut kernel::ffi::c_void) {
// SAFETY: `ptr` is the pointer to the `ForeignOwnable` leaked above and hence valid.
drop(unsafe { P::from_foreign(ptr.cast()) });
}
// SAFETY:
// - `dev.as_raw()` is a pointer to a valid and bound device.
// - `ptr` is a valid pointer the `ForeignOwnable` devres takes ownership of.
to_result(unsafe {
// `devm_add_action_or_reset()` also calls `callback` on failure, such that the
// `ForeignOwnable` is released eventually.
bindings::devm_add_action_or_reset(dev.as_raw(), Some(callback::<P>), ptr.cast())
})
}
/// Encapsulate `data` in a [`KBox`] and [`Drop::drop`] `data` once `dev` is unbound.
///
/// # Examples
///
/// ```no_run
/// use kernel::{device::{Bound, Device}, devres};
///
/// /// Registration of e.g. a class device, IRQ, etc.
/// struct Registration;
///
/// impl Registration {
/// fn new() -> Self {
/// // register
///
/// Self
/// }
/// }
///
/// impl Drop for Registration {
/// fn drop(&mut self) {
/// // unregister
/// }
/// }
///
/// fn from_bound_context(dev: &Device<Bound>) -> Result {
/// devres::register(dev, Registration::new(), GFP_KERNEL)
/// }
/// ```
pub fn register<T, E>(dev: &Device<Bound>, data: impl PinInit<T, E>, flags: Flags) -> Result
where
T: Send + 'static,
Error: From<E>,
{
let data = KBox::pin_init(data, flags)?;
register_foreign(dev, data)
}