Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

wrong format for size_t in dev_dbg() #147

Open
ghibo opened this issue Feb 14, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

wrong format for size_t in dev_dbg() #147

ghibo opened this issue Feb 14, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@ghibo
Copy link

ghibo commented Feb 14, 2024

When compiling with -Wformat it arises in drivers/hid/ipts/cmd.c and drivers/hid/ipts/mei.c some warning about wrong printf format, where a %ld is used for a size_t type, instead of a %zu. Here is a patch to fix those casting warnings.

0001-fix-size_t-printf-arguments.patch.txt

@qzed
Copy link
Member

qzed commented Mar 14, 2024

Thanks! This is something you should submit to https://github.com/linux-surface/intel-precise-touch though. The kernel code is based on that.

StollD pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 16, 2024
…find_and_get_node_by_id()

[ Upstream commit 4207b55 ]

The BPF helper bpf_cgroup_from_id() calls kernfs_find_and_get_node_by_id()
which acquires kernfs_idr_lock, which is an non-raw non-IRQ-safe lock. This
can lead to deadlocks as bpf_cgroup_from_id() can be called from any BPF
programs including e.g. the ones that attach to functions which are holding
the scheduler rq lock.

Consider the following BPF program:

  SEC("fentry/__set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked")
  int BPF_PROG(__set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked, struct task_struct *p,
	       struct affinity_context *affn_ctx, struct rq *rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
  {
	  struct cgroup *cgrp = bpf_cgroup_from_id(p->cgroups->dfl_cgrp->kn->id);

	  if (cgrp) {
		  bpf_printk("%d[%s] in %s", p->pid, p->comm, cgrp->kn->name);
		  bpf_cgroup_release(cgrp);
	  }
	  return 0;
  }

__set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked() is called with rq lock held and the above
BPF program calls bpf_cgroup_from_id() within leading to the following
lockdep warning:

  =====================================================
  WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
  6.7.0-rc3-work-00053-g07124366a1d7-dirty #147 Not tainted
  -----------------------------------------------------
  repro/1620 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
  ffffffff833b3688 (kernfs_idr_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: kernfs_find_and_get_node_by_id+0x1e/0x70

		and this task is already holding:
  ffff888237ced698 (&rq->__lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: task_rq_lock+0x4e/0xf0
  which would create a new lock dependency:
   (&rq->__lock){-.-.}-{2:2} -> (kernfs_idr_lock){+.+.}-{2:2}
  ...
   Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:

	 CPU0                    CPU1
	 ----                    ----
    lock(kernfs_idr_lock);
				 local_irq_disable();
				 lock(&rq->__lock);
				 lock(kernfs_idr_lock);
    <Interrupt>
      lock(&rq->__lock);

		 *** DEADLOCK ***
  ...
  Call Trace:
   dump_stack_lvl+0x55/0x70
   dump_stack+0x10/0x20
   __lock_acquire+0x781/0x2a40
   lock_acquire+0xbf/0x1f0
   _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40
   kernfs_find_and_get_node_by_id+0x1e/0x70
   cgroup_get_from_id+0x21/0x240
   bpf_cgroup_from_id+0xe/0x20
   bpf_prog_98652316e9337a5a___set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked+0x96/0x11a
   bpf_trampoline_6442545632+0x4f/0x1000
   __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked+0x5/0x5a0
   sched_setaffinity+0x1b3/0x290
   __x64_sys_sched_setaffinity+0x4f/0x60
   do_syscall_64+0x40/0xe0
   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0x4e

Let's fix it by protecting kernfs_node and kernfs_root with RCU and making
kernfs_find_and_get_node_by_id() acquire rcu_read_lock() instead of
kernfs_idr_lock.

This adds an rcu_head to kernfs_node making it larger by 16 bytes on 64bit.
Combined with the preceding rearrange patch, the net increase is 8 bytes.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrea Righi <[email protected]>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants