linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] cpufreq: fix governor start/stop race condition

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:25:44 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg@...vell.com>
Cc:	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	njiang1@...vell.com, zjwu@...vell.com, ylmao@...vell.com,
	chenxg.marvell@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] cpufreq: fix governor start/stop race condition

On Thursday, June 13, 2013 05:01:58 PM Xiaoguang Chen wrote:
> cpufreq governor stop and start should be kept in sequence.
> If not, there will be unexpected behavior, for example:
> 
> we have 4 cpus and policy->cpu=cpu0, cpu1/2/3 are linked to cpu0.

Please spell cpus as "CPUs".  And please start sequences from capitals.

[Yes, it *really* is a problem.]

> the normal sequence is as below:
> 
> 1) Current governor is userspace, one application tries to set
> governor to ondemand. it will call __cpufreq_set_policy in which it
> will stop userspace governor and then start ondemand governor.

Do I think correctly that this is for all CPUs?

> 2) Current governor is userspace, now cpu0 hotplugs in cpu3, it will

Can you please tell me what the above is supposed to mean?  Is it supposed to
mean "the online of cpu3 is being run on cpu0" or something different?  If
something different, then what?

> call cpufreq_add_policy_cpu. on which it first stops userspace
> governor, and then starts userspace governor.
> 
> Now if the sequence of above two cases interleaves, it becames
> below sequence:
> 
> 1) application stops userspace governor
> 2)                                      hotplug stops userspace governor

The problem is already here, right?  The governor shouldn't be stopped twice?

> 3) application starts ondemand governor
> 4)                                      hotplug starts a governor
> 
> in step 4, hotplug is supposed to start userspace governor, but now
> the governor has been changed by application to ondemand, so hotplug
> starts ondemand governor again !!!!
> 
> The solution is: do not allow stop one policy's governor multi-times
> Governor stop should only do once for one policy, after it is stopped,
> no other governor stop should be executed. also add one mutext to
> protect __cpufreq_governor so governor operation can be kept in sequence.

One more request. ->

> Signed-off-by: Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg@...vell.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h   |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 2d53f47..b51473e 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpufreq_policy *, cpufreq_cpu_data);
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(char[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN], cpufreq_cpu_governor);
>  #endif
>  static DEFINE_RWLOCK(cpufreq_driver_lock);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpufreq_governor_lock);
>  
>  /*
>   * cpu_policy_rwsem is a per CPU reader-writer semaphore designed to cure
> @@ -1562,6 +1563,21 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  
>  	pr_debug("__cpufreq_governor for CPU %u, event %u\n",
>  						policy->cpu, event);
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> +	if ((!policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)) ||
> +	    (policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START))) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)
> +		policy->governor_enabled = 0;
> +	else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)
> +		policy->governor_enabled = 1;
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> +
>  	ret = policy->governor->governor(policy, event);
>  
>  	if (!ret) {
> @@ -1569,6 +1585,14 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  			policy->governor->initialized++;
>  		else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT)
>  			policy->governor->initialized--;
> +	} else {
> +		/* Restore original values */
> +		mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> +		if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)
> +			policy->governor_enabled = 1;
> +		else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)
> +			policy->governor_enabled = 0;
> +		mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
>  	}
>  
>  	/* we keep one module reference alive for
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index 037d36a..c12db73 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
>  	unsigned int		policy; /* see above */
>  	struct cpufreq_governor	*governor; /* see below */
>  	void			*governor_data;
> +	int			governor_enabled; /* governor start/stop flag */

-> Please use bool here and true/false instead of 1/0 above.

>  
>  	struct work_struct	update; /* if update_policy() needs to be
>  					 * called, but you're in IRQ context */

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/