linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver

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:	Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:07:31 -0600
From:	Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:	<rjw@...k.pl>, <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use
 the rcu

On 02/22/2013 09:39 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>
> Sorry for pointing out this so late but i still feel we are missing something
> really important.
>
> On 22 February 2013 21:54, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com> wrote:
>
>> -       read_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>> +       rcu_read_lock();
>> +       freqs->flags = rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver)->flags;
>>          policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, freqs->cpu);
>> -       read_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>> +       rcu_read_unlock();
>> -       write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>>          for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
>>                  per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy;
>>                  per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, j) = policy->cpu;
>>          }
>> -       write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> Look at how we are protecting cpufreq_cpu_data here. rcu_read_[un]lock()
> only marks the start/end of critical section. How are we sure here that
> cpufreq_cpu_data is not read simultaneously when we are updating it?
>
> rcu lock/unlock only works for cpufreq_driver pointer only and not for
> this data. We still need the same locking for for cpufreq_cpu_data.
>
> What do you say?

That would include putting the lock around the  __cpufreq_cpu_get.
But I do think your right.

Perhaps a better way at this point is to have one lock for 
cpufreq_cpu_data, and a second with the rcu to protect cpufreq_driver.


--
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/