[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gbraK-dwsxeAmE-GUxWnoS=5EdOOCKecptDpFPFpKBfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 03:34:09 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/12] cpufreq: governor: Close dbs_data update race condition
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 18-02-16, 17:20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > On 18-02-16, 02:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> >> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static ssize_t governor_store(struct kob
>> >>
>> >> mutex_lock(&dbs_data->mutex);
>> >>
>> >> - if (gattr->store)
>> >> + if (dbs_data->usage_count && gattr->store)
>> >
>> > That's not gonna be enough. The above lock doesn't guarantee
>> > protection with any such races.
>
> Oops, I completely misread it. Really sorry about that.
>
> But now that I have read the code again, I wonder why we need this protection at
> all. The first thing we do after decrementing the usage_count counter, is we put
> the kobject. Which will ensure that the sysfs files are all gone. So, what is
> the race we are trying to fix then?
The ->store() callbacks for different attributes may do silly stuff
like walking all CPUs in the system and updating per-CPU data for
them. If the dbs_data the callback has been called for is going away,
this is pointless at best and may be actually harmful depending on
what the callback is really doing.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists