linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, store_scaling_governor requires policy->rwsem to be held for duration of changing governors [v2]

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:	Tue, 05 Aug 2014 15:06:35 -0700
From:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@...hat.com>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, store_scaling_governor requires policy->rwsem
 to be held for duration of changing governors [v2]

On 08/05/2014 03:53 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 5 August 2014 16:17, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Nope, not a stupid question.  After reproducing (finally!) yesterday I've been
>> wondering the same thing.
>
> Good to know that :)
>
>> I've been looking into *exactly* this.  On any platform where
>> cpu_weight(affected_cpus) == 1 for a particular cpu this lockdep trace should
>> happen.
>
>> That's what I'm wondering too.  I'm going to instrument the code to find out
>> this morning.  I'm wondering if this comes down to a lockdep class issue
>> (perhaps lockdep puts globally defined locks like cpufreq_global_kobject in a
>> different class?).
>
> Maybe, I tried this Hack to make this somewhat similar to the other case
> on my platform with just two CPUs:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 6f02485..6b4abac 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpufreq_governor_mutex);
>
>   bool have_governor_per_policy(void)
>   {
> -       return !!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY);
> +       return !(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY);
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(have_governor_per_policy);
>
>
> This should result in something similar to setting that per-policy-governor
> flag (Actually I could have done that too :)), and I couldn't see that crash :(
>
> That needs more investigation now, probably we can get some champ of
> sysfs stuff like Tejun/Greg into discussion now..

Stephen and I looked into this. This is not a sysfs framework 
difference. The reason we don't have this issue when we use global 
tunables is because we add the attribute group to the 
cpufreq_global_kobject and that kobject doesn't have a kobj_type ops 
similar to the per policy kobject. So, read/write to those attributes do 
NOT go through the generic show/store ops that wrap every other cpufreq 
framework attribute read/writes.

So, none of those read/write do any kind of locking. They don't race 
with POLICY_EXIT (because we remove the sysfs group first thing in 
POLICY_EXIT) but might still race with START/STOPs (not sure, haven't 
looked closely yet).

For example, writing to sampling_rate of ondemand governor might cause a 
race in update_sampling_rate(). It could race and happen between a STOP 
and POLICY_EXIT (triggered by hotplug, gov change, etc).

So, this might be a completely separate bug that needs fixing when we 
don't use per policy govs.

-Saravana

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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/