Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-94642-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 14:16:50 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Sam Sun <samsun1006219@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller@googlegroups.com,
	xrivendell7@gmail.com, ardb@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug] WARNING in static_key_disable_cpuslocked
Message-ID: <20240306221650.sw3lha7kca2quv63@treble>
References: <CAEkJfYNNZftjpYBpnH4tEnm82orKtQ6SQn9i3sg7YNO-Df3tSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240306105420.6a6bea2c@gandalf.local.home>
 <20240306193101.s2g33o4viqi2azf3@treble>
 <854e523c-c467-47f6-b977-933cbaadeb62@akamai.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <854e523c-c467-47f6-b977-933cbaadeb62@akamai.com>

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:12:07PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/6/24 2:31 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:54:20AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Now I guess the question is, why is something trying to disable something
> > > that is not enabled? Is the above scenario OK? Or should the users of
> > > static_key also prevent this?
> > 
> > Apparently that's an allowed scenario, as the jump label code seems to
> > be actively trying to support it.  Basically the last one "wins".
> > 
> > See for example:
> > 
> >    1dbb6704de91 ("jump_label: Fix concurrent static_key_enable/disable()")
> > 
> > Also the purpose of the first atomic_read() is to do a quick test before
> > grabbing the jump lock.  So instead of grabbing the jump lock earlier,
> > it should actually do the first test atomically:
> 
> Makes sense but the enable path can also set key->enabled to -1.

Ah, this code is really subtle :-/

> So I think a concurrent disable could then see the -1 in tmp and still
> trigger the WARN.

I think this shouldn't be possible, for the same reason that
static_key_slow_try_dec() warns on -1:  key->enabled can only be -1
during the first enable.  And disable should never be called before
then.

> So I think we could change the WARN to be:
> WARN_ON_ONCE(tmp != 0 && tmp != -1). And also add a similar check
> for enable if we have enable vs enable racing?

My patch subtly changed the "key->enabled > 0" to "key->enabled != 0".
If I change that back then it should be fine.

> Although it seems like the set key->enabled to -1 while used in the inc/dec
> API isn't really doing anything in the enable/disable part here?
> But then the key->enabled I think has to move in front of the
> jump_label_update() to make that part work right...

Yeah, this code needs better comments.  Let me turn it into a proper
patch.

-- 
Josh