From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kbuild-all@01.org,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
0day robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] OPTIONAL: cpufreq/intel_pstate: fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:58 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803300821330.2870@hadrien> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87po3mxf73.fsf@suse.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2766 bytes --]
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Julia,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> >> > Use DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE rather than DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE
> >> > for debugfs files.
> >> >
> >> > Semantic patch information:
> >> > Rationale: DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file()
> >> > imposes some significant overhead as compared to
> >> > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file_unsafe().
> >>
> >> Just curious: could you please expand on what "imposes some
> >> significant overhead" means?
> >
> > I don't know. I didn't write this rule. Nicolai, can you explain?
>
> From commit 49d200deaa68 ("debugfs: prevent access to removed files' private
> data"):
>
> Upon return of debugfs_remove()/debugfs_remove_recursive(), it might
> still be attempted to access associated private file data through
> previously opened struct file objects. If that data has been freed by
> the caller of debugfs_remove*() in the meanwhile, the reading/writing
> process would either encounter a fault or, if the memory address in
> question has been reassigned again, unrelated data structures could get
> overwritten.
> [...]
> Currently, there are ~1000 call sites of debugfs_create_file() spread
> throughout the whole tree and touching all of those struct file_operations
> in order to make them file removal aware by means of checking the result of
> debugfs_use_file_start() from within their methods is unfeasible.
>
> Instead, wrap the struct file_operations by a lifetime managing proxy at
> file open [...]
>
> The additional overhead comes in terms of additional memory needed: for
> debugs files created through debugfs_create_file(), one such struct
> file_operations proxy is allocated for each struct file instantiation,
> c.f. full_proxy_open().
>
> This was needed to "repair" the ~1000 call sites without touching them.
>
> New debugfs users should make their file_operations removal aware
> themselves by means of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE() and signal that fact to
> the debugfs core by instantiating them through
> debugfs_create_file_unsafe().
>
> See commit c64688081490 ("debugfs: add support for self-protecting
> attribute file fops") for further information.
Thanks. Perhaps it would be good to add a reference to this commit in
the message generated by the semantic patch.
Would it be sufficient to just apply the semantic patch everywhere and
submit the patches?
julia
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nicolai
>
>
> --
> SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
> HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-30 6:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-29 19:12 [PATCH] OPTIONAL: cpufreq/intel_pstate: fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings Julia Lawall
2018-03-29 19:11 ` Francisco Jerez
2018-03-29 19:31 ` [kbuild-all] " Fabio Estevam
2018-03-29 19:23 ` Francisco Jerez
2018-03-29 19:44 ` Julia Lawall
2018-03-30 6:14 ` Nicolai Stange
2018-03-30 6:22 ` Julia Lawall [this message]
2018-03-30 15:33 ` Fabio Estevam
2018-03-31 4:20 ` Nicolai Stange
2018-03-30 9:51 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=alpine.DEB.2.20.1803300821330.2870@hadrien \
--to=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=currojerez@riseup.net \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=festevam@gmail.com \
--cc=kbuild-all@01.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nstange@suse.de \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox