linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: list_del_rcu should be used in function _remove_list

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: <20171218095717.GA12565@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Dec 2017 10:57:17 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Chunyan Zhang <chunyan.zhang@...eadtrum.com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Wang <vincent.wang@...eadtrum.com>,
        Orson Zhai <orson.zhai@...eadtrum.com>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: list_del_rcu should be used in function
 _remove_list_dev

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:37:38PM +0800, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
> From: Vincent Wang <vincent.wang@...eadtrum.com>
> 
> list_del_rcu() should be used to replace list_del() in the function
> _remove_list_dev(), since the opp is a rcu protected pointer.
> 
> For example, on an ARM big.Little platform of spreadtrum, there are
> little cluster, big cluster and gpu using pm_opp. And the opp_table
> of big cluster will be removed when big cluster is removed, which
> is implemented in the cpufreq driver. Sometimes an issue maybe occur:
> 
> 
> [  237.647758] c0 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address dead000000000110
> [  237.647776] c0 pgd = ffffffc073e78000
> [  237.647786] c0 [dead000000000110] *pgd=0000000000000000, *pud=0000000000000000
> [  237.647808] c0 Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> [  237.653535] c0 Modules linked in: sprdwl_ng(O) mtty marlin2_fm mali_kbase(O)
> [  237.653569] c0 CPU: 0 PID: 38 Comm: kworker/u12:1 Tainted: G S      W  O    4.4.83+ #1
> [  237.653578] c0 Hardware name: Spreadtrum SP9850KHsmt 1h10 Board (DT)
> [  237.653594] c0 Workqueue: devfreq_wq devfreq_monitor
> [  237.653605] c0 task: ffffffc0babd0d80 task.stack: ffffffc0badbc000
> [  237.653619] c0 PC is at _find_device_opp+0x58/0xac
> [  237.653629] c0 LR is at dev_pm_opp_find_freq_ceil+0x2c/0xb8
> 
> [  237.921294] c0 Call trace:
> [  237.921425] c0 [<ffffff80085362b0>] _find_device_opp+0x58/0xac
> [  237.921437] c0 [<ffffff8008536560>] dev_pm_opp_find_freq_ceil+0x2c/0xb8
> [  237.921452] c0 [<ffffff80088760f4>] devfreq_recommended_opp+0x54/0x7c
> [  237.921494] c0 [<ffffff8000b6a96c>] kbase_wait_write_flush+0x164/0x358 [mali_kbase]
> [  237.921504] c0 [<ffffff800887485c>] update_devfreq+0x8c/0xf8
> [  237.921514] c0 [<ffffff80088749e4>] devfreq_monitor+0x34/0x94
> [  237.921529] c0 [<ffffff80080bd75c>] process_one_work+0x154/0x458
> [  237.921539] c0 [<ffffff80080be428>] worker_thread+0x134/0x4a4
> [  237.921551] c0 [<ffffff80080c4bec>] kthread+0xdc/0xf0
> [  237.921564] c0 [<ffffff8008085f20>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x30
> 
> Cc: stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>     # 4.4
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Wang <vincent.wang@...eadtrum.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chunyan Zhang <chunyan.zhang@...eadtrum.com>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
> This patch is for 4.4 stable branch only.
> Once this patch accepted, I can cook a similar patch for 4.9 stable branch.

I need that one first, as you don't want to regress from a working 4.4
release when moving to a 4.9 release, right?

> This fix can't be done to upstream kernel as the OPP code doesn't
> use RCUs anymore.

What was the upstream fix that changed this?  Why is this not a problem
in 4.14?  In Linus's tree?

I _REALLY_ do not like taking patches that are not in Linus's tree, as
when we do that, we almost always get it wrong.  Seriously, our track
record here is horrid.

So I need a lot of assurance that this is the correct fix, that it has
been tested properly, and that there really is no way to take the
upstream patches instead of your one-off patch.

Also, what commit does this fix?  When did the bug show up?  When did it
go away?  Why not include a Fixes: line?

See, a lot more work needs to be done here, as I said previously :)

Taking patches that are not in Linus's tree is a very expensive, and
difficult thing, for good reason.

thanks,

greg k-h