Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:11:44 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "moderated list:INTEL ETHERNET DRIVERS" 
        <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, keescook@chromium.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] sched/cpufreq: Fix incorrect RCU API usage
Message-ID: <20190221161144.GU32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190221054942.132388-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190221054942.132388-4-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20190221091805.GX32477@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190221152139.GB19213@google.com>
 <20190221153117.GT32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190221155218.GZ11787@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190221155218.GZ11787@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 07:52:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:31:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:21:39AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:18:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:49:40AM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > > @@ -34,8 +34,12 @@ void cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(int cpu, struct update_util_data *data,
> > > > >  	if (WARN_ON(!data || !func))
> > > > >  		return;
> > > > >  
> > > > > -	if (WARN_ON(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu)))
> > > > > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > +	if (WARN_ON(rcu_dereference(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu)))) {
> > > > > +		rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > >  		return;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	data->func = func;
> > > > >  	rcu_assign_pointer(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu), data);

> For whatever it is worth, in that case it could use rcu_access_pointer().
> And this primitive does not do the lockdep check for being within an RCU
> read-side critical section.  As Peter says, if there is no dereferencing,
> there can be no use-after-free bug, so the RCU read-side critical is
> not needed.

On top of that, I suspect this is under the write-side lock (we're doing
assignment after all).