Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Set cpufreq_cpu_data to NULL before putting kobject

santosh shilimkar
2015-01-30T22:55:21Z

On 1/30/2015 2:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 06:43:12 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> cpufreq_cpu_data is protected by cpufreq_driver_lock and one of the instances
>> has missed this.
>
> No, it isn't. cpufreq_cpu_data is a pointer and doesn't need any locks to
> protect it. What the lock does is to guarantee the callers of cpufreq_cpu_get()
> that the policy object won't go away from under them (it is used for some other
> purposes too, but they are unrelated).
>
> What technically happens is an ordering problem. per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu)
> needs to be cleared before calling kobject_put(&policy->kobj) *and* under the
> lock, because otherwise if someone else calls cpufreq_cpu_get() in parallel
> with that, they can obtain a non-NULL from it *after* kobject_put(&policy->kobj)
> was executed.
>
> So the lock is needed not just because it protects cpufreq_cpu_data, but because
> it is supposed to prevent writes to cpufreq_cpu_data from happening between the
> read from it and the kobject_get(&policy->kobj) in cpufreq_cpu_get().
>
>> And as a result we get this:
>>
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 4 at include/linux/kref.h:47
>> kobject_get+0x41/0x50()
>> Modules linked in: acpi_cpufreq(+) nfsd auth_rpcgss nfs_acl
>> lockd grace sunrpc xfs libcrc32c sd_mod ixgbe igb mdio ahci hwmon
>> ...
>> Call Trace:
>> [<ffffffff81661b14>] dump_stack+0x46/0x58
>> [<ffffffff81072b61>] warn_slowpath_common+0x81/0xa0
>> [<ffffffff81072c7a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
>> [<ffffffff812e16d1>] kobject_get+0x41/0x50
>> [<ffffffff815262a5>] cpufreq_cpu_get+0x75/0xc0
>> [<ffffffff81527c3e>] cpufreq_update_policy+0x2e/0x1f0
>> [<ffffffff810b8cb2>] ? up+0x32/0x50
>> [<ffffffff81381aa9>] ? acpi_ns_get_node+0xcb/0xf2
>> [<ffffffff81381efd>] ? acpi_evaluate_object+0x22c/0x252
>> [<ffffffff813824f6>] ? acpi_get_handle+0x95/0xc0
>> [<ffffffff81360967>] ? acpi_has_method+0x25/0x40
>> [<ffffffff81391e08>] acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed+0x77/0x82
>> [<ffffffff81089566>] ? move_linked_works+0x66/0x90
>> [<ffffffff8138e8ed>] acpi_processor_notify+0x58/0xe7
>> [<ffffffff8137410c>] acpi_ev_notify_dispatch+0x44/0x5c
>> [<ffffffff8135f293>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x15/0x22
>> [<ffffffff8108c910>] process_one_work+0x160/0x410
>> [<ffffffff8108d05b>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x520
>> [<ffffffff8108cf40>] ? rescuer_thread+0x380/0x380
>> [<ffffffff81092421>] kthread+0xe1/0x100
>> [<ffffffff81092340>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1b0/0x1b0
>> [<ffffffff81669ebc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>> [<ffffffff81092340>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1b0/0x1b0
>> ---[ end trace 89e66eb9795efdf7 ]---
>>
>> And here is the race:
>>
>> Thread A: Workqueue: kacpi_notify
>>
>> acpi_processor_notify()
>> acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed()
>> cpufreq_update_policy()
>> cpufreq_cpu_get()
>> kobject_get()
>>
>> Thread B: xenbus_thread()
>>
>> xenbus_thread()
>> msg->u.watch.handle->callback()
>> handle_vcpu_hotplug_event()
>> vcpu_hotplug()
>> cpu_down()
>> __cpu_notify(CPU_POST_DEAD..)
>> cpufreq_cpu_callback()
>> __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish()
>> cpufreq_policy_put_kobj()
>> kobject_put()
>>
>> cpufreq_cpu_get() gets the policy from per-cpu variable cpufreq_cpu_data under
>> cpufreq_driver_lock, and once it gets a valid policy it expects it to not be
>> freed until cpufreq_cpu_put() is called.
>
> Because it does the kobject_get() under the lock too.
>
>> But the race happens when another thread puts the kobject first and updates
>> cpufreq_cpu_data later
>
> This is an ordering problem.
>
>> and that too without these locks.
>
> And this is racy.
>
>> And so the first thread
>> gets a valid policy structure and before it does kobject_get() on it, the second
>> one does kobject_put(). And so this WARN().
>>
>> Fix this by setting cpufreq_cpu_data to NULL before putting the kobject and that
>> too under locks.
>
> That's almost correct. In addition to the above (albeit maybe unintentionally)
> the patch also fixes the possible race between two instances of
> __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() with the same arguments running in parallel with
> each other. The proof is left as an exercise to the reader. :-)
>
> Please try to improve the changelog ...
>
>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.12+
>> Reported-by: Ethan Zhao <ethan.zhao@oracle.com>
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> @Santosh: I have changed read locks to write locks here and so you need to test
>> again.
>>
Right. Tested this version and confirm that it fixes the reported WARN()

Regards,
Santosh