mirror of
https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git
synced 2024-12-04 18:13:04 +00:00
adf7a019e5
On RTAS platforms there is a general restriction that the OS must not
enter RTAS on more than one CPU at a time. This low-level
serialization requirement is satisfied by holding a spin
lock (rtas_lock) across most RTAS function invocations.
However, some pseries RTAS functions require multiple successive calls
to complete a logical operation. Beginning a new call sequence for such a
function may disrupt any other sequences of that function already in
progress. Safe and reliable use of these functions effectively
requires higher-level serialization beyond what is already done at the
level of RTAS entry and exit.
Where a sequence-based RTAS function is invoked only through
sys_rtas(), with no in-kernel users, there is no issue as far as the
kernel is concerned. User space is responsible for appropriately
serializing its call sequences. (Whether user space code actually
takes measures to prevent sequence interleaving is another matter.)
Examples of such functions currently include ibm,platform-dump and
ibm,get-vpd.
But where a sequence-based RTAS function has both user space and
in-kernel uesrs, there is a hazard. Even if the in-kernel call sites
of such a function serialize their sequences correctly, a user of
sys_rtas() can invoke the same function at any time, potentially
disrupting a sequence in progress.
So in order to prevent disruption of kernel-based RTAS call sequences,
they must serialize not only with themselves but also with sys_rtas()
users, somehow. Preferably without adding more function-specific hacks
to sys_rtas(). This is a prerequisite for adding an in-kernel call
sequence of ibm,get-vpd, which is in a change to follow.
Note that it has never been feasible for the kernel to prevent
sys_rtas()-based sequences from being disrupted because control
returns to user space on every call. sys_rtas()-based users of these
functions have always been, and continue to be, responsible for
coordinating their call sequences with other users, even those which
may invoke the RTAS functions through less direct means than
sys_rtas(). This is an unavoidable consequence of exposing
sequence-based RTAS functions through sys_rtas().
* Add an optional mutex member to struct rtas_function.
* Statically define a mutex for each RTAS function with known call
sequence serialization requirements, and assign its address to the
.lock member of the corresponding function table entry, along with
justifying commentary.
* In sys_rtas(), if the table entry for the RTAS function being
called has a populated lock member, acquire it before taking
rtas_lock and entering RTAS.
* Kernel-based RTAS call sequences are expected to access the
appropriate mutex explicitly by name. For example, a user of the
ibm,activate-firmware RTAS function would do:
int token = rtas_function_token(RTAS_FN_IBM_ACTIVATE_FIRMWARE);
int fwrc;
mutex_lock(&rtas_ibm_activate_firmware_lock);
do {
fwrc = rtas_call(token, 0, 1, NULL);
} while (rtas_busy_delay(fwrc));
mutex_unlock(&rtas_ibm_activate_firmware_lock);
There should be no perceivable change introduced here except that
concurrent callers of the same RTAS function via sys_rtas() may block
on a mutex instead of spinning on rtas_lock.
Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Link: https://msgid.link/20231212-papr-sys_rtas-vs-lockdown-v6-6-e9eafd0c8c6c@linux.ibm.com
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| asm | ||
| uapi/asm | ||