From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: gregkh@suse.de, dhowells@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com,
rjw@sisk.pl, kay.sievers@vrfy.org, jmorris@namei.org,
tj@kernel.org, bp@amd64.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Usermodehelper: Introduce reference counting to solve usermodehelper_disabled race
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:59:15 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EDD68E3.6050100@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111205212524.27496.58775.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com>
Hello,
2011-12-06 오전 6:26, Srivatsa S. Bhat 쓴 글:
> This patch adds the necessary synchronization framework to fix the race
> condition with the 'usermodehelper_disabled' flag, by implementing a
> refcounting solution. Specifically, it introduces the pair get_usermodehelper()
> and put_usermodehelper(), which can be used by the readers (those who want to
> read the value of the usermodehelper_disabled flag, such as _request_firmware()
> in this case). The writers (those who enable/disable usermodehelpers by
> setting/resetting that flag) can use the pair umh_control_begin() and
> umh_control_done().
>
> The reason for using a refcounting solution and not just a plain mutex, is
> that we don't want to unnecessarily serialize all users of request_firmware(),
> which act as readers. But note that we cannot use reader-writer locks here
> because the readers sleep (waiting for the firmware load from user-space),
> and sleeping with spinlocks held is not allowed. So refcounting implemented
> using mutex locks underneath, seems to be the best fit here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat<srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>
> The refcounting solution implemented here is adapted from the one used in
> the CPU hotplug infrastructure (kernel/cpu.c). If this patchset sounds
> reasonable, I plan to make the refcounting generic (in a later patch) and
> expose it via include/linux/refcount.h or something similar, and then use it
> at these 2 places instead of duplicating code.
>
IMHO it seems that the write path of the cpu_hotplug is protected by
another mutex (cpu_add_remove_lock) to guarantee that the only one
writer is active at a time. But I'm not sure this is the case for the
umhelper too.
If more than 2 tasks call umh_control_begin() at the same time (is it
possible though?), it will lost tasks except for the winner and
active_writer AFAICS. Am I missing something?
Thanks.
Namhyung Kim
> include/linux/kmod.h | 2 ++
> kernel/kmod.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kmod.h b/include/linux/kmod.h
> index b16f653..845fe3d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kmod.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kmod.h
> @@ -117,5 +117,7 @@ extern void usermodehelper_init(void);
> extern int usermodehelper_disable(void);
> extern void usermodehelper_enable(void);
> extern bool usermodehelper_is_disabled(void);
> +extern void get_usermodehelper(void);
> +extern void put_usermodehelper(void);
>
> #endif /* __LINUX_KMOD_H__ */
> diff --git a/kernel/kmod.c b/kernel/kmod.c
> index 2142687..acb52af 100644
> --- a/kernel/kmod.c
> +++ b/kernel/kmod.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,70 @@ static kernel_cap_t usermodehelper_bset = CAP_FULL_SET;
> static kernel_cap_t usermodehelper_inheritable = CAP_FULL_SET;
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(umh_sysctl_lock);
>
> +static struct {
> + struct task_struct *active_writer;
> + struct mutex lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
> + /*
> + * Also blocks the new readers during an ongoing update to the
> + * 'usermodehelper_disabled' flag.
> + */
> + int refcount;
> +} umhelper = {
> + .active_writer = NULL,
> + .lock = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(umhelper.lock),
> + .refcount = 0,
> +};
> +
> +void get_usermodehelper(void)
> +{
> + might_sleep();
> + if (umhelper.active_writer == current)
> + return;
> + mutex_lock(&umhelper.lock);
> + umhelper.refcount++;
> + mutex_unlock(&umhelper.lock);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_usermodehelper);
> +
> +void put_usermodehelper(void)
> +{
> + if (umhelper.active_writer == current)
> + return;
> + mutex_lock(&umhelper.lock);
> + if (!--umhelper.refcount&& unlikely(umhelper.active_writer))
> + wake_up_process(umhelper.active_writer);
> + mutex_unlock(&umhelper.lock);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(put_usermodehelper);
> +
> +/*
> + * This ensures that enabling or disabling usermodehelpers can begin
> + * only when the refcount goes to zero.
> + *
> + * Note that during an ongoing usermodehelper enable/disable operation,
> + * the new readers, if any, will be blocked by umhelper.lock
> + */
> +static void umh_control_begin(void)
> +{
> + umhelper.active_writer = current;
> +
> + for (;;) {
> + mutex_lock(&umhelper.lock);
> + if (likely(!umhelper.refcount))
> + break;
> + __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + mutex_unlock(&umhelper.lock);
> + schedule();
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void umh_control_done(void)
> +{
> + umhelper.active_writer = NULL;
> + mutex_unlock(&umhelper.lock);
> +}
> +
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
>
> /*
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-06 0:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-05 21:25 [PATCH 0/2] PM / Usermodehelper: Fix freezer failures due to racy usermodehelper_is_disabled() Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 21:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] PM / Usermodehelper: Introduce reference counting to solve usermodehelper_disabled race Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-05 21:38 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-07 12:21 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-06 0:59 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2011-12-07 12:30 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2011-12-07 13:59 ` Namhyung Kim
2011-12-05 21:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] PM / request_firmware(): Use the refcounting solution to fix the race Srivatsa S. Bhat
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4EDD68E3.6050100@gmail.com \
--to=namhyung@gmail.com \
--cc=bp@amd64.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.