From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: On trace_*_rcuidle functions in modules
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:04:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200415220459.GE17661@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200415174918.154a86d0@gandalf.local.home>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 05:49:18PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 14:02:04 -0700
> John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > So in my case your concerns may not be a problem, but I guess
> > generally it might. Though I'd hope the callback would be unregistered
> > (and whatever waiting for the grace period to complete be done) before
> > the module removal is complete. But maybe I'm still missing your
> > point?
>
> Hmm, you may have just brought up a problem here...
>
> You're saying that cpu_pm_register_notifier() callers are called from non
> RCU watching context? If that's the case, we have this:
>
> int cpu_pm_unregister_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
> {
> return atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(&cpu_pm_notifier_chain, nb);
> }
>
> And this:
>
> int atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(struct atomic_notifier_head *nh,
> struct notifier_block *n)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> int ret;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
> ret = notifier_chain_unregister(&nh->head, n);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nh->lock, flags);
> synchronize_rcu();
> return ret;
> }
>
> Which means that if something registered a cpu_pm notifier, then
> unregistered it, and freed whatever the notifier accesses, then there's a
> chance that the synchronize_rcu() can return before the called notifier
> finishes, and anything that notifier accesses could have been freed.
>
> I believe that module code should not be able to be run in RCU non watching
> context, and neither should notifiers. I think we just stumbled on a bug.
>
> Paul?
Or we say that such modules cannot be unloaded. Or that such modules'
exit handlers, after disentangling themselves from the idle loop, must
invoke synchronize_rcu_rude() or similar, just as modules that use
call_rcu() are currently required to invoke rcu_barrier().
Or is it possible to upgrade the protection that modules use?
My guess is that invoking rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit() around every
potential call into module code out of the PM code is a non-starter,
but I cannot prove that either way.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-15 22:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-15 2:20 On trace_*_rcuidle functions in modules John Stultz
2020-04-15 2:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-04-15 3:47 ` John Stultz
2020-04-15 13:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-04-15 12:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-15 19:56 ` John Stultz
2020-04-15 20:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-15 20:17 ` John Stultz
2020-04-15 20:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-15 21:02 ` John Stultz
2020-04-15 21:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-15 22:04 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2020-04-15 22:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-04-15 22:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-15 22:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-04-15 22:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-15 22:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-04-16 0:06 ` John Stultz
2020-04-16 0:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-16 1:02 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-04-16 1:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-04-16 2:17 ` John Stultz
2020-04-15 22:07 ` John Stultz
2020-04-15 22:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20200415220459.GE17661@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tkjos@google.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).