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]
Date:   Wed, 25 May 2022 11:02:16 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Schspa Shi <schspa@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: fix race on cpufreq online

On 24-05-22, 13:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:48 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > So this was done before the entire CPU hotplug rework and it was
> > useful at that time.
> >
> > The current code always runs cpufreq_set_policy() under policy->rwsem
> > and governors are stopped under policy->rwsem, so this particular race
> > cannot happen AFAICS.
> >
> > Locking CPU hotplug prevents CPUs from going away while store() is
> > running, but in order to run store(), the caller must hold an active
> > reference to the policy kobject.  That prevents the policy from being
> > freed and so policy->rwsem can be acquired.  After policy->rwsem has
> > been acquired, policy->cpus can be checked to determine whether or not
> > there are any online CPUs for the given policy (there may be none),
> > because policy->cpus is only manipulated under policy->rwsem.
> >
> > If a CPU that belongs to the given policy is going away,
> > cpufreq_offline() has to remove it from policy->cpus under
> > policy->rwsem, so either it has to wait for store() to release
> > policy->rwsem, or store() will acquire policy->rwsem after it and will
> > find that policy->cpus is empty.
> 
> Moreover, locking CPU hotplug doesn't actually prevent
> cpufreq_remove_dev() from running which can happen when the cpufreq
> driver is unregistered, for example.

Right, we can get rid of this now I believe.

-- 
viresh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ