linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 4/4] thermal: intel_powerclamp: Use get_cpu() instead of smp_processor

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: <731def9d99e6e199ed4b6e29119746121c41ca32.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2022 20:06:01 -0700
From:   srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 4/4] thermal: intel_powerclamp: Use
 get_cpu() instead of smp_processor_id() to avoid crash

On Wed, 2022-10-12 at 18:58 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 3:23 PM Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Pavel,
> > On 2022-10-11 at 13:36:46 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > > From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > 
> > > > [ Upstream commit 68b99e94a4a2db6ba9b31fe0485e057b9354a640 ]
> > > > 
> > > > When CPU 0 is offline and intel_powerclamp is used to inject
> > > > idle, it generates kernel BUG:
> > > > 
> > > > BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code:
> > > > bash/15687
> > > > caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x20
> > > > CPU: 4 PID: 15687 Comm: bash Not tainted 5.19.0-rc7+ #57
> > > > Call Trace:
> > > > <TASK>
> > > > dump_stack_lvl+0x49/0x63
> > > > dump_stack+0x10/0x16
> > > > check_preemption_disabled+0xdd/0xe0
> > > > debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x20
> > > > powerclamp_set_cur_state+0x7f/0xf9 [intel_powerclamp]
> > > > ...
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > Here CPU 0 is the control CPU by default and changed to the
> > > > current CPU,
> > > > if CPU 0 offlined. This check has to be performed under
> > > > cpus_read_lock(),
> > > > hence the above warning.
> > > > 
> > > > Use get_cpu() instead of smp_processor_id() to avoid this BUG.
> > > 
> > > This has exactly the same problem as smp_processor_id(), you just
> > > worked around the warning. If it is okay that control_cpu
> > > contains
> > > stale value, could we have a comment explaining why?
> > > 
> > May I know why does control_cpu have stale value? The control_cpu
> > is a random picked online CPU which will be used later to collect
> > statistics.
> > As long as the control_cpu is online, it is valid IMO.
> 
> So this is confusing, because the code makes the impression that
> getting the number of the CPU running the code matters in some way,
> which isn't the case.
> 
> Something like cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask) should work as well if
> I'm not mistaken and it would be less confusing to use this instead
> IMO.
That should work as we are under hotplug lock anyway here.

Thanks,
Srinivas