| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20251217153455.3560176-1-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 07:34:55 -0800
From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To: rafael@...nel.org
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"Borah, Chaitanya Kumar" <chaitanya.kumar.borah@...el.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
RavitejaX Veesam <ravitejax.veesam@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH] powercap: intel_rapl: Fix possible recursive lock warning
With the RAPL PMU addition, there is a recursive locking when CPU online
callback function calls rapl_package_add_pmu(). Here cpu_hotplug_lock
is already acquired by cpuhp_thread_fun() and rapl_package_add_pmu()
tries to acquire again.
<4>[ 8.197433] ============================================
<4>[ 8.197437] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
<4>[ 8.197440] 6.19.0-rc1-lgci-xe-xe-4242-05b7c58b3367dca84+ #1 Not tainted
<4>[ 8.197444] --------------------------------------------
<4>[ 8.197447] cpuhp/0/20 is trying to acquire lock:
<4>[ 8.197450] ffffffff83487870 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at:
rapl_package_add_pmu+0x37/0x370 [intel_rapl_common]
<4>[ 8.197463]
but task is already holding lock:
<4>[ 8.197466] ffffffff83487870 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at:
cpuhp_thread_fun+0x6d/0x290
<4>[ 8.197477]
other info that might help us debug this:
<4>[ 8.197480] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
<4>[ 8.197483] CPU0
<4>[ 8.197485] ----
<4>[ 8.197487] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
<4>[ 8.197490] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
<4>[ 8.197493]
*** DEADLOCK ***
..
..
<4>[ 8.197542] __lock_acquire+0x146e/0x2790
<4>[ 8.197548] lock_acquire+0xc4/0x2c0
<4>[ 8.197550] ? rapl_package_add_pmu+0x37/0x370 [intel_rapl_common]
<4>[ 8.197556] cpus_read_lock+0x41/0x110
<4>[ 8.197558] ? rapl_package_add_pmu+0x37/0x370 [intel_rapl_common]
<4>[ 8.197561] rapl_package_add_pmu+0x37/0x370 [intel_rapl_common]
<4>[ 8.197565] rapl_cpu_online+0x85/0x87 [intel_rapl_msr]
<4>[ 8.197568] ? __pfx_rapl_cpu_online+0x10/0x10 [intel_rapl_msr]
<4>[ 8.197570] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x41f/0x6c0
<4>[ 8.197573] ? cpuhp_thread_fun+0x6d/0x290
<4>[ 8.197575] cpuhp_thread_fun+0x1e2/0x290
<4>[ 8.197578] ? smpboot_thread_fn+0x26/0x290
<4>[ 8.197581] smpboot_thread_fn+0x12f/0x290
<4>[ 8.197584] ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
<4>[ 8.197586] kthread+0x11f/0x250
<4>[ 8.197589] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
<4>[ 8.197592] ret_from_fork+0x344/0x3a0
<4>[ 8.197595] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
<4>[ 8.197597] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
<4>[ 8.197604] </TASK>
Fix this issue in the same way as rapl powercap package domain is added
from the same CPU online callback by introducing another interface which
doesn't call cpus_read_lock(). Add rapl_package_add_pmu_locked() and
rapl_package_remove_pmu_locked() which don't call cpus_read_lock().
Fixes: 748d6ba43afd ("powercap: intel_rapl: Enable MSR-based RAPL PMU support")
Reported-by: Borah, Chaitanya Kumar <chaitanya.kumar.borah@...el.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/5427ede1-57a0-43d1-99f3-8ca4b0643e82@intel.com/T/#u
Tested-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Tested-by: RavitejaX Veesam <ravitejax.veesam@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
---
drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_msr.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/intel_rapl.h | 4 ++++
3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
index b9d87e56cbbc..3ff6da3bf4e6 100644
--- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
+++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
@@ -2032,7 +2032,7 @@ static int rapl_pmu_update(struct rapl_package *rp)
return ret;
}
-int rapl_package_add_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp)
+int rapl_package_add_pmu_locked(struct rapl_package *rp)
{
struct rapl_package_pmu_data *data = &rp->pmu_data;
int idx;
@@ -2040,8 +2040,6 @@ int rapl_package_add_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp)
if (rp->has_pmu)
return -EEXIST;
- guard(cpus_read_lock)();
-
for (idx = 0; idx < rp->nr_domains; idx++) {
struct rapl_domain *rd = &rp->domains[idx];
int domain = rd->id;
@@ -2091,17 +2089,23 @@ int rapl_package_add_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp)
return rapl_pmu_update(rp);
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rapl_package_add_pmu_locked);
+
+int rapl_package_add_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp)
+{
+ guard(cpus_read_lock)();
+
+ return rapl_package_add_pmu_locked(rp);
+}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rapl_package_add_pmu);
-void rapl_package_remove_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp)
+void rapl_package_remove_pmu_locked(struct rapl_package *rp)
{
struct rapl_package *pos;
if (!rp->has_pmu)
return;
- guard(cpus_read_lock)();
-
list_for_each_entry(pos, &rapl_packages, plist) {
/* PMU is still needed */
if (pos->has_pmu && pos != rp)
@@ -2111,6 +2115,14 @@ void rapl_package_remove_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp)
perf_pmu_unregister(&rapl_pmu.pmu);
memset(&rapl_pmu, 0, sizeof(struct rapl_pmu));
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rapl_package_remove_pmu_locked);
+
+void rapl_package_remove_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp)
+{
+ guard(cpus_read_lock)();
+
+ rapl_package_remove_pmu_locked(rp);
+}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rapl_package_remove_pmu);
#endif
diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_msr.c b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_msr.c
index 0ce1096b6314..9a7e150b3536 100644
--- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_msr.c
+++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_msr.c
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int rapl_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
if (IS_ERR(rp))
return PTR_ERR(rp);
if (rapl_msr_pmu)
- rapl_package_add_pmu(rp);
+ rapl_package_add_pmu_locked(rp);
}
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &rp->cpumask);
return 0;
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static int rapl_cpu_down_prep(unsigned int cpu)
lead_cpu = cpumask_first(&rp->cpumask);
if (lead_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
if (rapl_msr_pmu)
- rapl_package_remove_pmu(rp);
+ rapl_package_remove_pmu_locked(rp);
rapl_remove_package_cpuslocked(rp);
} else if (rp->lead_cpu == cpu) {
rp->lead_cpu = lead_cpu;
diff --git a/include/linux/intel_rapl.h b/include/linux/intel_rapl.h
index e9ade2ff4af6..f479ef5b3341 100644
--- a/include/linux/intel_rapl.h
+++ b/include/linux/intel_rapl.h
@@ -214,10 +214,14 @@ void rapl_remove_package(struct rapl_package *rp);
#ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
int rapl_package_add_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp);
+int rapl_package_add_pmu_locked(struct rapl_package *rp);
void rapl_package_remove_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp);
+void rapl_package_remove_pmu_locked(struct rapl_package *rp);
#else
static inline int rapl_package_add_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp) { return 0; }
+static inline int rapl_package_add_pmu_locked(struct rapl_package *rp) { return 0; }
static inline void rapl_package_remove_pmu(struct rapl_package *rp) { }
+static inline void rapl_package_remove_pmu_locked(struct rapl_package *rp) { }
#endif
#endif /* __INTEL_RAPL_H__ */
--
2.48.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists