linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/3] cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:32:19 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its
	usage

* Pallipadi, Venkatesh (venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 12:46 -0700, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com (venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com) wrote:
> > > Commit b14893a62c73af0eca414cfed505b8c09efc613c although it was very
> > > much needed to cleanup ondemand timer cleanly, openup a can of worms
> > > related to locking dependencies in cpufreq.
> > > 
> > > Patch here defines the need for dbs_mutex and cleans up its usage in
> > > ondemand governor. This also resolves the lockdep warnings reported here
> > > 
> > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.1/01925.html
> > > 
> 
> > > @@ -598,14 +593,16 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > >  				max(min_sampling_rate,
> > >  				    latency * LATENCY_MULTIPLIER);
> > >  		}
> > > +		mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> > > +
> > >  		dbs_timer_init(this_dbs_info);
> > >  
> > > -		mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> > >  		break;
> > >  
> > >  	case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP:
> > > -		mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
> > >  		dbs_timer_exit(this_dbs_info);
> > 
> > Hrm, so.. how do we protect against concurrent :
> > 
> > CPUFREQ_GOV_START/CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP now ?
> 
> concurrent _START _STOP across CPUs does not matter for timer_init and
> timer_exit.

Given those are per-cpu anyway I guess. Hopefully it works OK with CPU
hotplug.

> On same CPU, there cannot be two concurrent _START as upper
> level cpufreq will have policy_rwsem in write mode.

Agreed.

> I cannot think of a
> flow where _START and _STOP on same CPU is possible.
> 

_STOP is not protected by any mutex now. So it could be preempted, and
then a _START executed, and there is your race.

> However two concurrent _STOP for same CPU is still possible, as we are
> releasing the rwsem lock before STOP callback. "Back to drawing board"
> time to figure this all out..

I fear that it is indeed the case. If you can come up with a document
explaining the expected interactions between :

- cpu hotplug
- policy lock
- cpufreq driver lock
- timer lock

that would be awesome. :)

Mathieu

> 
> Thanks,
> Venki
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/