From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>
Cc: longman@redhat.com, swboyd@chromium.org, linux@roeck-us.net,
wuchi.zero@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
syzbot+5093ba19745994288b53@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] debugobject: fix concurrency issues with is_static_object
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 18:46:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sfdw8yru.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m2ttycd8kx.fsf@gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 22 2023 at 23:40, Schspa Shi wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
>>> + } else {
>>> + /*
>>> + * The debug object is inited, and we should check this again
>>> + */
>>> + if (obj->is_static) {
>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&db->lock, flags);
>>> + return;
>>
>> This is broken. If the object is static and already hashed and in active
>> state then this returns and fails to detect the re-initialization of an
>> active object.
>>
>
> Yes, it's right, this can be fixed by pass a skip_ifstatic parameters
> from debug_object_activate. then re-initialization of an active object
> can be detected.
>>> -static __initdata struct self_test obj = { .static_init = 0 };
>>> +static struct self_test obj __initdata = { .static_init = 0 };
>>> +static struct self_test sobj __initdata = { .static_init = 1 };
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> - obj.static_init = 1;
>>
>> Plus the s/obj/sobj/ which should be equivalent, unless I'm missing
>> something here.
>>
>
> We have saved the is_static state when it is used at the first time, so
> the is_static_object function won't be called in this environment.
There is zero requirement for saving that state.
>> lib/debugobjects.c | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- a/lib/debugobjects.c
>> +++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
>> @@ -216,10 +216,6 @@ static struct debug_obj *__alloc_object(
>> return obj;
>> }
>>
>> -/*
>> - * Allocate a new object. If the pool is empty, switch off the debugger.
>> - * Must be called with interrupts disabled.
>> - */
>> static struct debug_obj *
>> alloc_object(void *addr, struct debug_bucket *b, const struct debug_obj_descr *descr)
>> {
>> @@ -273,7 +269,7 @@ alloc_object(void *addr, struct debug_bu
>> if (obj) {
>> obj->object = addr;
>> obj->descr = descr;
>> - obj->state = ODEBUG_STATE_NONE;
>> + obj->state = ODEBUG_STATE_INIT;
>
> This actually droped the ODEBUG_STATE_NONE state. If we active a
> uninitialized object, there will be no error report.
Indeed.
> This should be
>
> if (descr->is_static_object && descr->is_static_object(addr))
> obj->state = ODEBUG_STATE_INIT;
> else
> obj->state = ODEBUG_STATE_NONE;
Kinda.
> But this can't resolve the initial state requirement from the
> is_static_object() call.
Which requirement? The is_static_object() call takes the address of the
actual object and has nothing to do with the tracking object at all.
> I think we can report an error when calling debug_object_free() from a
> static object. If don't do so, there is no way to determine it's a
> static object.
The memory allocator will tell you loudly when you try to free a static
object. So no point in having another check.
> When its initialization state changes, the is_static_object() call
> will return the wrong value.
That call is only relevant on the first invocation when there is no
tracking object yet. So what's the problem you are trying to solve?
> Please see the fellowing test case:
>
> obj.static_init = 1;
This is pointless, really. Once the object is tracked it does not matter
at all whether it was statically or dynamically allocated.
>
> I test this patch, with my above change, and it seems to work well, but
> we still need to add extra flags to store its static state. And
> debug_object_free() should report an error for the static object.
No, we don't.
> I think we should introduce lookup_object_or_alloc and is_static at the
> same time.
What for?
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-22 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-03 16:19 [PATCH 1/2] debugobject: fix concurrency issues with is_static_object Schspa Shi
2023-03-03 16:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] debugobject: add unit test for static debug object Schspa Shi
2023-03-23 3:16 ` Schspa Shi
2023-03-23 7:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-03-23 8:44 ` Schspa Shi
2023-04-13 22:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-03-03 17:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] debugobject: fix concurrency issues with is_static_object Waiman Long
2023-03-03 17:53 ` Schspa Shi
2023-03-04 0:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-03-03 23:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-03-22 15:40 ` Schspa Shi
2023-03-22 17:46 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2023-03-22 17:55 ` Schspa Shi
2023-03-22 21:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-03-23 3:10 ` Schspa Shi
2023-03-22 18:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-03-22 18:18 ` Schspa Shi
2023-04-12 7:54 ` [PATCH] debugobject: Prevent init race with static objects Thomas Gleixner
2023-04-13 0:17 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-04-13 12:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-05-01 13:40 ` Ido Schimmel
2023-05-01 15:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-05-02 5:53 ` Ido Schimmel
2023-05-02 8:12 ` [tip: core/debugobjects] debugobject: Ensure pool refill (again) tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner
2023-04-15 21:20 ` [tip: core/debugobjects] debugobject: Prevent init race with static objects tip-bot2 for Thomas Gleixner
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=87sfdw8yru.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=schspa@gmail.com \
--cc=swboyd@chromium.org \
--cc=syzbot+5093ba19745994288b53@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=wuchi.zero@gmail.com \
/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