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]

Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:17:12 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.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>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org (moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS),
        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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] sched/cpufreq: Fix incorrect RCU API usage

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:49:40 -0500
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:

> Recently I added an RCU annotation check to rcu_assign_pointer(). All
> pointers assigned to RCU protected data are to be annotated with __rcu
> inorder to be able to use rcu_assign_pointer() similar to checks in
> other RCU APIs.
> 
> This resulted in a sparse error: kernel//sched/cpufreq.c:41:9: sparse:
> error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address
> spaces)
> 
> Fix this by using the correct APIs for RCU accesses. This will
> potentially avoid any future bugs in the code. If it is felt that RCU
> protection is not needed here, then the rcu_assign_pointer call can be
> dropped and replaced with, say, WRITE_ONCE or smp_store_release. Or, may
> be we add a new API to do it. But calls rcu_assign_pointer seems an
> abuse of the RCU API unless RCU is being used.

This all looks broken, and this patch is papering over the issue, or
worse, hiding it.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/cpufreq.c | 8 ++++++--
>  kernel/sched/sched.h   | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c
> index 22bd8980f32f..c9aeb3bf5dc2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
>   */
>  #include "sched.h"
>  
> -DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct update_util_data *, cpufreq_update_util_data);
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct update_util_data __rcu *, cpufreq_update_util_data);
>  
>  /**
>   * cpufreq_add_update_util_hook - Populate the CPU's update_util_data pointer.
> @@ -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);

An rcu_assign_pointer() is to update something that is going to be read
under rcu_read_lock() elsewhere. But updates to an rcu variable are not
protected by rcu_read_lock() (hence the "read" in the name). Adding
rcu_read_lock() above does nothing, but perhaps hides an issue.

Writes usually have something else that protects against races. Thus,
the above shouldn't be switched to using a rcu_dereference(), but
perhaps a rcu_dereference_protected(), with whatever is protecting
updates?

Which doing a bit of investigating, looks to be the rwsem
"policy->rwsem", where policy comes from:

	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);

I would say the code as is, is not broken. But this patch isn't helping
anything.

-- Steve


> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index d04530bf251f..2ab545d40381 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -2166,7 +2166,7 @@ static inline u64 irq_time_read(int cpu)
>  #endif /* CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING */
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> -DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct update_util_data *, cpufreq_update_util_data);
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct update_util_data __rcu *, cpufreq_update_util_data);
>  
>  /**
>   * cpufreq_update_util - Take a note about CPU utilization changes.