linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 09/19] cpufreq: fix warning for show_scaling_available_governors unlocked access to cpufreq_governor

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: <20160113102536.GB18603@e106622-lin>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:25:36 +0000
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, mturquette@...libre.com,
	steve.muckle@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/19] cpufreq: fix warning for
 show_scaling_available_governors unlocked access to cpufreq_governor_list

Hi,

On 12/01/16 15:43, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11-01-16, 17:35, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > show_scaling_available_governors iterates through cpufreq_governor_list
> > without holding cpufreq_governor_mutex; this generates the following
> > warning:
> > 
> > [  700.910381] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [  700.924282] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1756 at kernel/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:700 show_scaling_available_governors+0x6f/0xb8()
> > [  700.965473] Modules linked in:
> > [  700.974637] CPU: 2 PID: 1756 Comm: cat Tainted: G        W       4.4.0-rc2+ #299
> > [  700.996813] Hardware name: ARM-Versatile Express
> > [  701.010674] [<c0014215>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0010e25>] (show_stack+0x11/0x14)
> > [  701.033905] [<c0010e25>] (show_stack) from [<c02eca5d>] (dump_stack+0x55/0x78)
> > [  701.055561] [<c02eca5d>] (dump_stack) from [<c00202cd>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x59/0x84)
> > [  701.079839] [<c00202cd>] (warn_slowpath_common) from [<c002030f>] (warn_slowpath_null+0x17/0x1c)
> > [  701.106182] [<c002030f>] (warn_slowpath_null) from [<c03b7bef>] (show_scaling_available_governors+0x6f/0xb8)
> > [  701.135656] [<c03b7bef>] (show_scaling_available_governors) from [<c03b7dc3>] (show+0x27/0x38)
> > [  701.161488] [<c03b7dc3>] (show) from [<c015469f>] (sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x5f/0xa0)
> > [  701.183409] [<c015469f>] (sysfs_kf_seq_show) from [<c01536a7>] (kernfs_seq_show+0x1b/0x1c)
> > [  701.208188] [<c01536a7>] (kernfs_seq_show) from [<c011a6d5>] (seq_read+0x129/0x33c)
> > [  701.231161] [<c011a6d5>] (seq_read) from [<c00ff7c7>] (__vfs_read+0x1b/0x84)
> > [  701.252300] [<c00ff7c7>] (__vfs_read) from [<c010000f>] (vfs_read+0x5f/0xb0)
> > [  701.273436] [<c010000f>] (vfs_read) from [<c0100099>] (SyS_read+0x39/0x68)
> > [  701.294049] [<c0100099>] (SyS_read) from [<c000df21>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x1/0x1a)
> > [  701.316484] ---[ end trace 5dd15744a4da127c ]---
> 
> FWIW, I would suggest you to use cpufreq-dt for Juno instead of
> arm_bL. I have asked Sudeep to do it earlier, but perhaps he was busy.
>

I couldn't really relate this comment with this patch or the backtrace.
Can you please clarify why you are referring to switching to use
cpufreq-dt here?

> > Fix this by locking cpufreq_governor_mutex before for_each_governor().
> > 
> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index d065435..d91fdb8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -694,7 +694,7 @@ static ssize_t show_scaling_available_governors(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  		goto out;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
> > +	mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
> >  	for_each_governor(t) {
> >  		if (i >= (ssize_t) ((PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(char))
> >  		    - (CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN + 2)))
> > @@ -702,6 +702,7 @@ static ssize_t show_scaling_available_governors(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >  		i += scnprintf(&buf[i], CPUFREQ_NAME_PLEN, "%s ", t->name);
> >  	}
> >  out:
> > +	mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_mutex);
> >  	i += sprintf(&buf[i], "\n");
> >  	return i;
> >  }
> 
> Just move this patch before before the patch that added the
> lockdep-assert and we wouldn't be required to add the
> lockdep_assert_held() in the first place.
> 

Yep. As said, I just wanted to try to highlight possible problems with
this RFC.

Thanks,

- Juri