racy jump label users

[Andi Kleen]

Jason,

I noticed that a lot of the jump label users are racy,
because they implement something like this

static void sched_feat_disable(int i)
{
        if (static_key_enabled(&sched_feat_keys[i]))
                static_key_slow_dec(&sched_feat_keys[i]);
}

static void sched_feat_enable(int i)
{
        if (!static_key_enabled(&sched_feat_keys[i]))
                static_key_slow_inc(&sched_feat_keys[i]);
}

with no extra locking, controlled by sysfs. If two
CPUs do this in parallel the reference can be set multiple
times, which gives very unexpected semantics for a sysfs boolean.

Most likely you need a static_key_slow_setstate()
that does the check and set inside the jump label lock.

I understand that for inside kernel use reference
counts are the right semantics, but they are not so
good for sysfs interfaces.

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/