linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] CPU hotplug, Freezer: Fix bugs in CPU hotplug call path

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1110211038050.2131-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:42:25 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, <rjw@...k.pl>, <pavel@....cz>,
	<len.brown@...el.com>, <mingo@...e.hu>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	<lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	<ashok.raj@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] CPU hotplug, Freezer: Fix bugs in CPU hotplug
 call path

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

> When using the CPU hotplug infrastructure to offline/online CPUs, the cpu_up()
> and cpu_down() functions are used, which internally call _cpu_up() and
> _cpu_down() with the second argument *always* set to 0. The second argument
> is "tasks_frozen", which should be correctly set to 1 when tasks have been
> frozen, even when the freezing of tasks may be due to an event unrelated
> to CPU hotplug, such as a suspend operation in progress, in which case the
> freezer subsystem freezes all the freezable tasks.
> 
> Not giving the correct value for the 'tasks_frozen' argument can potentially
> lead to a lot of issues since this will send wrong notifications via the
> notifier mechanism leading to the execution of inappropriate code by the
> callbacks registered for the notifiers. That is, instead of CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN
> and CPU_DEAD_FROZEN notifications, it results in CPU_ONLINE and CPU_DEAD
> notifications to be sent all the time, irrespective of the actual state of
> the system (i.e., whether tasks are frozen or not).
> 
> This patch introduces a flag to indicate whether the tasks are frozen are not
> (by any event) and modifies cpu_up() and cpu_down() functions to check the
> value of this flag and accordingly call _cpu_up() and _cpu_down() respectively
> by supplying the correct value as the second argument based on the state of
> the system. This in turn means that the correct notifications are sent, thus
> ensuring that all the registered callbacks do the right thing.

That doesn't make any sense.  If tasks were frozen then the task 
calling _cpu_up() or _cpu_down() would be frozen too, and therefore 
wouldn't be able to make the call.

> Additionally, to ensure that the tasks are not frozen or thawed by the freezer
> subsystem while the registered callbacks are running, this patch adds a few
> notifications in the freezer which is then hooked onto by the CPU hotplug
> code, to avoid this race.

That's more sensible.  Freezing or thawing tasks isn't instantaneous.  
It's possible that _cpu_up() or _cpu_down() could be called while some 
tasks were frozen and others were still running.

If you're careful to prevent this from happening then there's no reason 
to change the tasks_frozen argument.  It should never be anything but 
0 in this situation.

Alan Stern

--
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/