Re: [PATCH 3/4] PM / OPP: take RCU lock in dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count

[Nishanth Menon]

On 12/24/2014 11:31 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 12/24/2014 11:09 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2014 05:09 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>> A lot of callers are missing the fact that dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count
>>>>> needs to be called under RCU lock. Given that RCU locks can safely be
>>>>> nested, instead of providing *_locked() API, let's take RCU lock inside
>>>>> dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() and leave callers as is.
>>>>
>>>> While it is true that we can safely do nested RCU locks, This also
>>>> encourages wrong usage.
>>>>
>>>> count = dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(dev)
>>>> ^^ point A
>>>> array   = kzalloc(count * sizeof (*array));
>>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>>> ^^ point B
>>>> .. work down the list and add OPPs..
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Between A and B, we might have had list modification (dynamic OPP
>>>> addition or deletion) - which implies that the count is no longer
>>>> accurate between point A and B. instead, enforcing callers to have the
>>>> responsibility of rcu_lock is exactly what we have to do since the OPP
>>>> library has no clue how to enforce pointer or data accuracy.
>>>
>>> No, you seem to have a misconception that rcu_lock protects you past
>>> the point B, but that is also wrong. The only thing rcu "lock"
>>> provides is safe traversing the list and guarantee that elements will
>>> not disappear while you are referencing them, but list can both
>>> contract and expand under you. In that regard code in
>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_opp.c is utterly wrong. If you want to count
>>> the list and use number of elements you should be taking a mutex.
>>> Luckily all cpufreq drivers at the moment only want to see if OPP
>>> table is empty or not, so as a stop-gap we can take rcu_lock
>>> automatically as we are getting count. We won't get necessarily
>>> accurate result, but at least we will be safe traversing the list.
>>
>> So, instead of a half solution, lets consider this in the realm of
>> dynamic OPPs as well. agreed to the point that we only have safe
>> traversal and pointer validity. the real problem however is with
>> "dynamic OPPs" (one of the original reasons why i did not add dynamic
>> OPPs in the original version was to escape from it's complexity for
>> users - anyways.. we are beyond that now). if OPPs can be removed on
>> the fly, we need the following:
>> a) use OPP notifiers to adequately handle list modification
>> b) lock down list modification (and associated APIs) to ensure that
>> the original cpufreq /devfreq list is correct.
>>
>> I still dont see the need to do this half solution.
> 
> The need for half solution at the moment is that you can't safely
> travel the lists and may crash on an invalid pointer.

So, fix the cpufreq-dt instead of moving the hack inside OPP driver.

> 
> Going forward I think (I mentioned that in my other email) that we
> should rework the OPP API so that callers fetch OPP table object for a
> device at init/probe time and then use it to get OPPs. This way won't
> have to travel two lists any time we want to reference an OPP.
> 
> And instead of relying notifiers, maybe look into using OPP tables
> directly in cpufreq drivers instead of converting OPP into static-ish
> cpufreq tables.
> 

If you'd like a proper fix for OPP usage, I am all open to see such a
proposal that works not just for cpufreq, but also for devfreq as well.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/