linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] sched/cpufreq: Fix incorrect RCU API usage

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: <20190221152139.GB19213@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 10:21:39 -0500
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS" 
        <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, keescook@...omium.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] sched/cpufreq: Fix incorrect RCU API usage

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:18:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:49:40AM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > @@ -34,8 +34,12 @@ void cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(int cpu, struct update_util_data *data,
> >  	if (WARN_ON(!data || !func))
> >  		return;
> >  
> > -	if (WARN_ON(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu)))
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +	if (WARN_ON(rcu_dereference(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu)))) {
> > +		rcu_read_unlock();
> >  		return;
> > +	}
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> >  
> >  	data->func = func;
> >  	rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu), data);
> 
> This doesn't make any kind of sense to me.
> 

As per the rcu_assign_pointer() line, I inferred that
cpufreq_update_util_data is expected to be RCU protected. Reading the pointer
value of RCU pointers generally needs to be done from RCU read section, and
using rcu_dereference() (or using rcu_access()).

In this patch, I changed cpufreq_update_util_data to be __rcu annotated to
avoid the sparse error thrown by rcu_assign_pointer().

Instead of doing that, If your intention here is RELEASE barrier, should I
just replace in this function:
	rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu), data);
with:
	smp_store_release(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu), data))
?

It would be nice IMO to be explicit about the intention of release/publish
semantics by using smp_store_release().

thanks,

 - Joel