On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:42:55PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 05:40:11PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> > On 3/6/24 5:16 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > hmm, right but I think in this case the reproducer is writing to a sysfs
> > file to enable/disable randomly so i'm not sure if there is anything that
> > would enforce that ordering. I guess you could try the reproducer, I haven't
> > really looked at it in any detail.
> >
> > The code in question here is in mm/vmscan.c which actually already takes the
> > local 'state_mutex' for some cases. So that could be extended I think easily
> > to avoid this warning.
>
> Hm, right... For now I'll just continue to allow "disable before enable"
> (or "double disable") since it may be harmless and I don't want to
> introduce any unnecessary constraints, unless we manage to convince
> ourselves that it's the right thing to do.
So, I think we can simplify this nicely by getting rid of the whole -1
thing altogether:
diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
index d9c822bbffb8..ef7eda7685b2 100644
--- a/kernel/jump_label.c
+++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
@@ -194,20 +194,15 @@ void static_key_enable_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(key);
lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
- if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) > 0) {
- WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&key->enabled) != 1);
+ if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 1)
return;
- }
-
jump_label_lock();
- if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0) {
- atomic_set(&key->enabled, -1);
+
+ if (atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, 0, 1) == 0)
jump_label_update(key);
- /*
- * See static_key_slow_inc().
- */
- atomic_set_release(&key->enabled, 1);
- }
+ else
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&key->enabled) != 1);
+
jump_label_unlock();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_enable_cpuslocked);
@@ -225,14 +220,16 @@ void static_key_disable_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(key);
lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
- if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) != 1) {
- WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&key->enabled) != 0);
+ if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0)
return;
- }
jump_label_lock();
- if (atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, 1, 0))
+
+ if (atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, 1, 0) == 1)
jump_label_update(key);
+ else
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&key->enabled) != 0);
+
jump_label_unlock();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_disable_cpuslocked);
