Re: [PATCH -mm] PM: Prevent frozen user mode helpers from failing the freezing of tasks

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:43:32PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> >  static int usermodehelper_pm_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
> >  					unsigned long action,
> >  					void *ignored)
> >  {
> > +	long retval;
> > +
> >  	switch (action) {
> >  	case PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE:
> >  	case PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE:
> >  		usermodehelper_disabled = 1;
> > -		return NOTIFY_OK;
> > +		/*
> > +		 * From now on call_usermodehelper_exec() won't start any new
> > +		 * helpers, so it is sufficient if running_helpers turns out to
> > +		 * be zero at one point (it may be increased later, but that
> > +		 * doesn't matter).
> > +		 */
> > +		retval = wait_event_timeout(running_helpers_waitq,
> > +					atomic_read(&running_helpers) == 0,
> > +					RUNNING_HELPERS_TIMEOUT);
> > +		if (retval) {
> > +			return NOTIFY_OK;
> > +		} else {
> > +			usermodehelper_disabled = 0;
> > +			return NOTIFY_BAD;
> 
> I think this is racy. First, this needs smp_mb() between "usermodehelper_disabled = 1"
> and wait_event_timeout().
> 
> Second, call_usermodehelper's path should first increment the counter, and only
> then check usermodehelper_disabled, and it needs an mb() in between too. Otherwise,
> the helper can see usermodehelper_disabled == 0, then PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE comes and
> returns NOTIFY_OK, then the helper increments the counter and starts application.
> 
> Sadly, you can't use srcu/qrcu because it doesn't handle timeouts.	

Interesting...  So the thought is to have a synchronize_srcu_timeout()
or something similar that waited for a grace period to elapse or for
a timeout to expire, whichever comes first?  It should not be too hard
to arrange something, if needed.

						Thanx, Paul