linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi: osl: Replace GFP_ATOMIC with GFP_KERNEL in acpi_os

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: <2e48794f-1ebb-6466-f4bf-aa409674bdaa@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Feb 2018 21:41:53 +0800
From:   Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc:     lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: osl: Replace GFP_ATOMIC with GFP_KERNEL in
 acpi_os_execute



On 2018/2/8 18:20, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2018 11:13:10 AM CET Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2018-02-08 09:51:41)
>>> On Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:13:41 AM CET Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>>>> After checking all possible call chains to acpi_os_execute here,
>>>> my tool finds that acpi_os_execute is never called in atomic context.
>>>> And acpi_os_execute calls acpi_debugger_create_thread
>>>> which calls mutex_lock,
>>>> thus it proves again that acpi_os_execute can
>>>> call functions which may sleep.
>>>> Thus GFP_ATOMIC is not necessary, and it can be replaced with GFP_KERNEL.
>>>>
>>>> This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by myself.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/acpi/osl.c |    2 +-
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c
>>>> index 3bb46cb..8ee605e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c
>>>> @@ -1066,7 +1066,7 @@ acpi_status acpi_os_execute(acpi_execute_type type,
>>>>         * having a static work_struct.
>>>>         */
>>>>   
>>>> -     dpc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_os_dpc), GFP_ATOMIC);
>>>> +     dpc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_os_dpc), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>        if (!dpc)
>>>>                return AE_NO_MEMORY;
>>>>   
>>>>
>>> Applied, thanks!
>> Hmm, not this patch per se, but
>>
>> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/next/next-20180207/fi-bxt-dsi/dmesg0.log
>> [  111.378236] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.h:420
>> [  111.378259] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 1701, name: gem_exec_flush
>> [  111.378275] INFO: lockdep is turned off.
>> [  111.378277] irq event stamp: 0
>> [  111.378280] hardirqs last  enabled at (0): [<          (null)>]           (null)
>> [  111.378286] hardirqs last disabled at (0): [<00000000a01fa473>] copy_process.part.7+0x2f1/0x1db0
>> [  111.378290] softirqs last  enabled at (0): [<00000000a01fa473>] copy_process.part.7+0x2f1/0x1db0
>> [  111.378292] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<          (null)>]           (null)
>> [  111.378293] Preemption disabled at:
>> [  111.378298] [<ffffffffa18f14f6>] __mutex_lock+0x56/0x9b0
>> [  111.378311] CPU: 1 PID: 1701 Comm: gem_exec_flush Tainted: G     U  W        4.15.0-next-20180207-g5d1c98967100-next-20180207 #1
>> [  111.378313] Hardware name: Intel Corp. Broxton P/Apollolake RVP1A, BIOS APLKRVPA.X64.0150.B11.1608081044 08/08/2016
>> [  111.378314] Call Trace:
>> [  111.378318]  <IRQ>
>> [  111.378323]  dump_stack+0x5f/0x86
>> [  111.378328]  ___might_sleep+0x1d9/0x240
>> [  111.378334]  ? acpi_os_execute+0x2d/0x130
>> [  111.378338]  kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x1ae/0x2b0
>> [  111.378344]  ? acpi_ev_asynch_enable_gpe+0x2d/0x2d
>> [  111.378347]  acpi_os_execute+0x2d/0x130
>> [  111.378351]  acpi_ev_gpe_dispatch+0xd7/0x120
>> [  111.378355]  acpi_ev_gpe_detect+0x156/0x195
>> [  111.378362]  acpi_ev_sci_xrupt_handler+0x16/0x28
>> [  111.378365]  acpi_irq+0xd/0x30
>> [  111.378369]  __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x3c/0x340
>> [  111.378374]  handle_irq_event_percpu+0x1b/0x50
>> [  111.378378]  handle_irq_event+0x2f/0x50
>> [  111.378381]  handle_fasteoi_irq+0x93/0x150
>> [  111.378386]  handle_irq+0x11/0x20
>> [  111.378390]  do_IRQ+0x5e/0x120
>> [  111.378395]  common_interrupt+0xbb/0xbb
>> [  111.378397]  </IRQ>
>>
>> does tell us that acpi_os_execute() is called in irq context.
> Well, right, thanks!
>
> I overlooked this instance, so dropping the patch.

Sorry for my false positive.
My tool missed that acpi_ev_sci_xrupt_handler() is an interrupt handler, 
sorry.
Thank Chris for testing my patch.


Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai