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 21:24:55 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc:     John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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: <20200415212455.28f22041@oasis.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20200416010258.GM20625@builder.lan>
References: <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>
        <20200415220459.GE17661@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
        <20200415185121.381a4bc3@gandalf.local.home>
        <CALAqxLX2UDQ7=dvzMoP6g-rYzw9dBebrynMfo4Gnv=SzaqhE=g@mail.gmail.com>
        <20200415204827.24f2c548@oasis.local.home>
        <20200416010258.GM20625@builder.lan>
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 18:02:58 -0700
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:

> Forgive me, but how is this problem related to the fact that the code is
> dynamically loaded, i.e. encapsulated in a module?

It's not.

> 
> Per the example earlier in this thread, the thing we're worried about is
> a use after free in the following scenario, right?
> 
>         cpu_pm_unregister_notifier(my_notifier);
> 	kfree(my_data);
> 
> But a driver implementing this snippet might do this regardless of being
> builtin or module and afaict exiting probe() unsuccessfully or unbinding
> the device would risk triggering this issue?

I know my email was confusing. I was talking about a bug that does not
exist. (There is no bug!)

The reason is that rcu is enabled during the call to the notifiers. The
above assumes that the my_data usage in the notifier callback is
surrounded by rcu_read_lock() (otherwise it's broken regardless of this
code or not). The above unregister will call synchronize_rcu() after it
removes the notifier which will guarantee that the rcu_read_lock()
critical sections would be completed. Then the kfree(my_data) can free
my_data with no possible users.

-- Steve