linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Fix a circular lock dependency problem

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: <20180723191627.GJ2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jul 2018 21:16:27 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Fix a circular lock dependency problem

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:49:39PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index b0dfd32..9cf02d7 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -922,8 +922,22 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
>  	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = to_policy(kobj);
>  	struct freq_attr *fattr = to_attr(attr);
>  	ssize_t ret = -EINVAL;
> +	int retries = 3;
>  
> -	cpus_read_lock();
> +	/*
> +	 * cpus_read_trylock() is used here to work around a circular lock
> +	 * dependency problem with respect to the cpufreq_register_driver().
> +	 * With a simple retry loop, the chance of not able to get the
> +	 * read lock is extremely small.
> +	 */
> +	while (!cpus_read_trylock()) {
> +		if (retries-- <= 0)
> +			return -EBUSY;
> +		/*
> +		 * Sleep for about 50ms and retry again.
> +		 */
> +		msleep(50);
> +	}

That's atrocious.