linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 15/17] counter: Implement events_queue

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:   Sat, 10 Jul 2021 11:08:19 -0500
From:   David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To:     William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     jic23@...nel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, a.fatoum@...gutronix.de,
        kamel.bouhara@...tlin.com, gwendal@...omium.org,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        syednwaris@...il.com, patrick.havelange@...ensium.com,
        fabrice.gasnier@...com, mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, o.rempel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 15/17] counter: Implement events_queue_size sysfs
 attribute

On 7/10/21 10:43 AM, David Lechner wrote:
> On 7/10/21 5:25 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
>>> and after that
>>>
>>> [   16.564403] ================================================
>>> [   16.570725] WARNING: lock held when returning to user space!
>>> [   16.577044] 5.13.0-next-20210706+ #4 Not tainted
>>> [   16.582198] ------------------------------------------------
>>> [   16.588507] cat/331 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
>>> [   16.595214] 1 lock held by cat/331:
>>> [   16.599103]  #0: ffff888102bb3630
>>> (&counter->chrdev_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: counter_chrdev_open+0x21/0x60
>>> [counter]
>>>
>>> Jarkko
>> I'm not sure how to resolve this warning. The purpose of this lock is to
>> limit chrdev to a single open at a time. To accomplish this I grab this
>> lock in counter_chrdev_open() and hold it until counter_chrdev_release()
>> is called. Is there a better way to accomplish this?
> 
> How about using an atomic flag, e.g test_and_set_bit()?

Another option could be to rethink it at a higher level and avoid the
need for a lock (and sysfs attribute) altogether. For example, would it
work to (re)allocate the kfifo buffer in the COUNTER_ENABLE_EVENTS_IOCTL
callback and add a parameter to that ioctl to specify the buffer size
(with units of events rather than bytes)?