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 17:49:18 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc:     paulmck@kernel.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: <20200415174918.154a86d0@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLW6jqr38bk8pp-Hom2=MLm3coTmzCP8MMfrDvMfx388=Q@mail.gmail.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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?


-- Steve