[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0910072214290.15183@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:15:36 +0200 (CEST)
From: John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Remove the bkl from msr_open()
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Remove the big kernel lock from msr_open() as it doesn't protect
> anything there.
>
> The only racy event that can happen here is a concurrent cpu shutdown.
>
> So let's look at what could be racy during/after the above event:
>
> - The cpu_online() check is racy, but the bkl doesn't help about
> that anyway it disables preemption but we may be chcking another
> cpu than the current one.
> Also the cpu can still become offlined between open and read calls.
>
> - The cpu_data(cpu) returns a safe pointer too. It won't be released on
> cpu offlining. But some fields can be changed from
> arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:remove_siblinginfo() :
>
> - phys_proc_id
> - cpu_core_id
>
> Those are not read from msr_open(). What we are checking is the
> x86_capability that is left untouched on offlining.
>
> So this removal looks safe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...e.de>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/msr.c | 16 ++++++----------
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c b/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c
> index 6a3cefc..5534499 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/msr.c
> @@ -174,21 +174,17 @@ static int msr_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> {
> unsigned int cpu = iminor(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode);
> struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(cpu);
> - int ret = 0;
>
> - lock_kernel();
> cpu = iminor(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode);
>
> - if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || !cpu_online(cpu)) {
> - ret = -ENXIO; /* No such CPU */
> - goto out;
> - }
> + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || !cpu_online(cpu))
> + return -ENXIO; /* No such CPU */
> +
> c = &cpu_data(cpu);
> if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_MSR))
> - ret = -EIO; /* MSR not supported */
> -out:
> - unlock_kernel();
> - return ret;
> + return -EIO; /* MSR not supported */
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 1.6.2.3
>
>
This case looks very similar to the cpuid_open one.
Reviewed-by: John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists