[GIT PULL] percpu fix for v4.10-rc6

Michael Ellerman mpe at ellerman.id.au
Wed Feb 1 16:46:01 AEDT 2017

Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Tejun Heo <tj at kernel.org> wrote:
>> Douglas found and fixed a ref leak bug in percpu_ref_tryget[_live]().
>> The bug is caused by storing the return value of
>> atomic_long_inc_not_zero() into an int temp variable before returning
>> it as a bool.  The interim cast to int loses the upper bits and can
>> lead to false negatives.  As percpu_ref uses a high bit to mark a
>> draining counter, this can happen relatively easily.  Fixed by using
>> bool for the temp variable.
> I think this fix is wrong.
> The fact is, atomic_long_inc_not_zero() shouldn't be returning
> anything with high bits.. Casting to "int" should have absolutely no
> impact. "int" is the traditional C truth value (with zero/nonzero
> being false/true), and while we're generally moving towards "bool" for
> true/false return values, I do think that code that assumes that these
> functions can be cast to "int" are right.
> For example, we used to have similar bugs in "test_bit()" returning
> the actual bit value (which could be high).
> And when users hit that problem, we fixed "test_bit()", not the users of it.
> So I'd rather fix the places that (insanely) return a 64-bit value.
> Is this purely a ppc64 issue, or does it happen somewhere else too?

Sorry I'm late to this, I wasn't Cc'ed on the original patch.

It looks like this is only a powerpc issue, we're the only arch other
than x86-32 that implements atomic_long_inc_not_zero() by hand (not
using atomic64_add_unless()).

Assuming all other arches have an atomic64_add_unless() which returns
an int then they should all be safe.

Actually we have a test suite for atomic64. The patch below adds a check
which catches the problem on powerpc at the moment, and passes once I
change our version to return an int. I'll turn it into a proper patch
and send it to whoever maintains the tests.


diff --git a/lib/atomic64_test.c b/lib/atomic64_test.c
index 46042901130f..813cd05bec9d 100644
--- a/lib/atomic64_test.c
+++ b/lib/atomic64_test.c
@@ -152,8 +152,10 @@ static __init void test_atomic64(void)
 	long long v0 = 0xaaa31337c001d00dLL;
 	long long v1 = 0xdeadbeefdeafcafeLL;
 	long long v2 = 0xfaceabadf00df001LL;
+	long long v3 = 0x8000000000000000LL;
 	long long onestwos = 0x1111111122222222LL;
 	long long one = 1LL;
+	int r_int;
 	atomic64_t v = ATOMIC64_INIT(v0);
 	long long r = v0;
@@ -239,6 +241,11 @@ static __init void test_atomic64(void)
 	r += one;
 	BUG_ON(v.counter != r);
+	/* Confirm the return value fits in an int, even if the value doesn't */
+	INIT(v3);
+	r_int = atomic64_inc_not_zero(&v);
+	BUG_ON(!r_int);
 static __init int test_atomics(void)

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list