Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:04:59 -0700
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
Message-ID: <20200415220459.GE17661@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <CALAqxLV4rM74wuzuZ+BkUi+keccxkAxv30N4vrFO7CVQ5vnT1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200415085348.5511a5fe@gandalf.local.home>
 <CALAqxLV1A6sOC1GWpFYXeBoDff0+AJgoOYK7NktcTdvX3kvAeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200415161424.584d07d3@gandalf.local.home>
 <CALAqxLU26PVFPSza5GceSF6gTVdzo_2D3G0dBp0KZXvAWFUktA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200415164116.40564f2c@gandalf.local.home>
 <CALAqxLW6jqr38bk8pp-Hom2=MLm3coTmzCP8MMfrDvMfx388=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200415174918.154a86d0@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200415174918.154a86d0@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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