linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] blk-iocost: fix sleeping in atomic context warnning

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:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:07:45 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     hch@....de, josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
        yukuai3@...wei.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] blk-iocost: fix sleeping in atomic context
 warnning

On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 10:39:37AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> 
> match_u64() is called inside ioc->lock, which causes smatch static
> checker warnings:
> 
> block/blk-iocost.c:3211 ioc_qos_write() warn: sleeping in atomic context
> block/blk-iocost.c:3240 ioc_qos_write() warn: sleeping in atomic context
> block/blk-iocost.c:3407 ioc_cost_model_write() warn: sleeping in atomic
> context
> 
> Fix the problem by introducing a mutex and using it while prasing input
> params.

It bothers me that parsing an u64 string requires a GFP_KERNEL memory
allocation.

> @@ -2801,9 +2806,11 @@ static void ioc_rqos_queue_depth_changed(struct rq_qos *rqos)
>  {
>  	struct ioc *ioc = rqos_to_ioc(rqos);
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&ioc->params_mutex);
>  	spin_lock_irq(&ioc->lock);
>  	ioc_refresh_params(ioc, false);
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&ioc->lock);
> +	mutex_unlock(&ioc->params_mutex);
>  }

Aren't the params still protected by ioc->lock? Why do we need to grab both?

Any chance I can persuade you into updating match_NUMBER() helpers to not
use match_strdup()? They can easily disable irq/preemption and use percpu
buffers and we won't need most of this patchset.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun