linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition

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]

Message-ID: <CAKohpo=UYR3sgtutEBRcvRtXjvNpph9wu2TgoM1168HXQrWjLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:53:40 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end

On 29 April 2014 18:36, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Some cpufreq drivers were redundantly invoking the _begin() and _end()
> APIs around frequency transitions, and this double invocation (one from
> the cpufreq core and the other from the cpufreq driver) used to result
> in a self-deadlock, leading to system hangs during boot. (The _begin()
> API makes contending callers wait until the previous invocation is
> complete. Hence, the cpufreq driver would end up waiting on itself!).
>
> Now all such drivers have been fixed, but debugging this issue was not
> very straight-forward (even lockdep didn't catch this). So let us add a
> debug infrastructure to the cpufreq core to catch such issues more easily
> in the future.
>
> We add a new field called 'transition_task' to the policy structure, to keep
> track of the task which is performing the frequency transition. Using this
> field, we make note of this task during _begin() and print a warning if we
> find a case where the same task is calling _begin() again, before completing
> the previous frequency transition using the corresponding _end().
>
> We have left out ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers from this debug infrastructure
> for 2 reasons:
>
> 1. At the moment, we have no way to avoid a particular scenario where this
>    debug infrastructure can emit false-positive warnings for such drivers.
>    The scenario is depicted below:
>
>
>          Task A                                         Task B
>
>     /* 1st freq transition */
>     Invoke _begin() {
>             ...
>             ...
>     }
>
>     Change the frequency
>
>     /* 2nd freq transition */
>     Invoke _begin() {
>             ... //waiting for B to
>             ... //finish _end() for
>             ... //the 1st transition
>             ...       |                         Got interrupt for successful
>             ...       |                         change of frequency (1st one).
>             ...       |
>             ...       |                         /* 1st freq transition */
>             ...       |                         Invoke _end() {
>             ...       |                                 ...
>             ...       V                         }
>             ...
>             ...
>     }
>
>    This scenario is actually deadlock-free because, once Task A changes the
>    frequency, it is Task B's responsibility to invoke the corresponding
>    _end() for the 1st frequency transition. Hence it is perfectly legal for
>    Task A to go ahead and attempt another frequency transition in the meantime.
>    (Of course it won't be able to proceed until Task B finishes the 1st _end(),
>    but this doesn't cause a deadlock or a hang).
>
>    The debug infrastructure cannot handle this scenario and will treat it as
>    a deadlock and print a warning. To avoid this, we exclude such drivers
>    from the purview of this code.
>
> 2. Luckily, we don't _need_ this infrastructure for ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers
>    at all! The cpufreq core does not automatically invoke the _begin() and
>    _end() APIs during frequency transitions in such drivers. Thus, the driver
>    alone is responsible for invoking _begin()/_end() and hence there shouldn't
>    be any conflicts which lead to double invocations. So, we can skip these
>    drivers, since the probability that such drivers will hit this problem is
>    extremely low, as outlined above.
>
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>
> v2: Removed the coverage of ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers, in order to avoid
> false-positives.
>
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |    7 +++++++
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h   |    1 +
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
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/