From: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
To: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
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>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [kbuild-all] [PATCH] OPTIONAL: cpufreq/intel_pstate: fix debugfs_simple_attr.cocci warnings
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:14:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87po3mxf73.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803292140340.2750@hadrien> (Julia Lawall's message of "Thu, 29 Mar 2018 21:44:02 +0200 (CEST)")
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,
Nicolai
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-30 6:14 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 [this message]
2018-03-30 6:22 ` Julia Lawall
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=87po3mxf73.fsf@suse.de \
--to=nstange@suse.de \
--cc=currojerez@riseup.net \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=festevam@gmail.com \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=kbuild-all@01.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--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