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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jJzXsKUH+SH5_Qs8C-A2=AdOL_RgOonuv62rx1FBjaYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:36:13 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <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 9:27 PM, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 03:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> I had thought about just returning an error if the trylock fails as CPU
> hotplug rarely happened. I can revert to that simple case if others have
> no objection.

Yes, you can return -EBUSY or -EAGAIN right away from here if the
cpus_read_trylock() is not successful.  There is not much reason for
the sysfs operation to continue in that case.