linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3 RESEND] acpi : prevent cpu from becoming online

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: <4FFEC60B.7040800@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:11:47 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lenb@...nel.org, toshi.kani@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3 RESEND] acpi : prevent cpu from becoming online

On 07/12/2012 05:10 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> Even if acpi_processor_handle_eject() offlines cpu, there is a chance
> to online the cpu after that. So the patch closes the window by using
> get/put_online_cpus().
> 
> Why does the patch change _cpu_up() logic?
> 
> The patch cares the race of hot-remove cpu and _cpu_up(). If the patch
> does not change it, there is the following race.
> 
> hot-remove cpu                         |  _cpu_up()
> ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
> call acpi_processor_handle_eject()     |
>      call cpu_down()                   |
>      call get_online_cpus()            |
>                                        | call cpu_hotplug_begin() and stop here
>      call arch_unregister_cpu()        |
>      call acpi_unmap_lsapic()          |
>      call put_online_cpus()            |
>                                        | start and continue _cpu_up()
>      return acpi_processor_remove()    |
> continue hot-remove the cpu            |
> 
> So _cpu_up() can continue to itself. And hot-remove cpu can also continue
> itself. If the patch changes _cpu_up() logic, the race disappears as below:
> 
> hot-remove cpu                         | _cpu_up()
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> call acpi_processor_handle_eject()     |
>      call cpu_down()                   |
>      call get_online_cpus()            |
>                                        | call cpu_hotplug_begin() and stop here
>      call arch_unregister_cpu()        |
>      call acpi_unmap_lsapic()          |
>           cpu's cpu_present is set     |
>           to false by set_cpu_present()|
>      call put_online_cpus()            |
>                                        | start _cpu_up()
>                                        | check cpu_present() and return -EINVAL
>      return acpi_processor_remove()    |
> continue hot-remove the cpu            |
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
>

Please consider fixing the grammar issue below (since it is a user-visible
print statement). Other than that, everything looks fine.

Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
 
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c |   14 ++++++++++++++
>  kernel/cpu.c                    |    8 +++++---
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-3.5-rc6/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-3.5-rc6.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-07-12 20:34:29.438289841 +0900
> +++ linux-3.5-rc6/drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c	2012-07-12 20:39:29.190542257 +0900
> @@ -850,8 +850,22 @@ static int acpi_processor_handle_eject(s
>  			return ret;
>  	}
> 
> +	get_online_cpus();
> +	/*
> +	 * The cpu might become online again at this point. So we check whether
> +	 * the cpu has been onlined or not. If the cpu became online, it means
> +	 * that someone wants to use the cpu. So acpi_processor_handle_eject()
> +	 * returns -EAGAIN.
> +	 */
> +	if (unlikely(cpu_online(pr->id))) {
> +		put_online_cpus();
> +		printk(KERN_WARNING "Failed to remove CPU %d, "
> +		       "since someone onlines the cpu\n" , pr->id);

How about:
"Failed to remove CPU %d, because some other task brought the CPU back online\n"

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

> +		return -EAGAIN;
> +	}
>  	arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
>  	acpi_unmap_lsapic(pr->id);
> +	put_online_cpus();
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  #else
> Index: linux-3.5-rc6/kernel/cpu.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-3.5-rc6.orig/kernel/cpu.c	2012-07-12 20:34:29.438289841 +0900
> +++ linux-3.5-rc6/kernel/cpu.c	2012-07-12 20:34:35.040219535 +0900
> @@ -343,11 +343,13 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned in
>  	unsigned long mod = tasks_frozen ? CPU_TASKS_FROZEN : 0;
>  	struct task_struct *idle;
> 
> -	if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu))
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
>  	cpu_hotplug_begin();
> 
> +	if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu)) {
> +		ret =  -EINVAL;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
>  	idle = idle_thread_get(cpu);
>  	if (IS_ERR(idle)) {
>  		ret = PTR_ERR(idle);
> 

--
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/