linux-kernel - Re: + poll-allow-f_op-poll-to-sleep-take-4.patch added to -mm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:08:58 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
	Ron Minnich <rminnich@...dia.gov>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
	Brad Boyer <flar@...andria.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + poll-allow-f_op-poll-to-sleep-take-4.patch added to -mm tree

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> > +static int pollwake(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> > +{
> > +	struct poll_wqueues *pwq = wait->private;
> > +	DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(dummy_wait, pwq->polling_task);
> > +
> > +	set_mb(pwq->triggered, 1);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Perform the default wake up operation using a dummy
> > +	 * waitqueue.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * TODO: This is hacky but there currently is no interface to
> > +	 * pass in @sync.  @sync is scheduled to be removed and once
> > +	 * that happens, wake_up_process() can be used directly.
> > +	 */
> > +	return default_wake_function(&dummy_wait, mode, sync, key);
> > +}
> > +
> > +int poll_schedule_timeout(struct poll_wqueues *pwq, int state,
> > +			  ktime_t *expires, unsigned long slack)
> > +{
> > +	int rc = -EINTR;
> > +
> > +	set_current_state(state);
> > +	if (!pwq->triggered)
> > +		rc = schedule_hrtimeout_range(expires, slack, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS);
> > +	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> 
> So, why do we need this mb() in pollwake() ?
> 
> try_to_wake_up() has a full barrier semantics, note the wmb() before
> task_rq_lock(). Since spin_lock() itself is STORE, the setting of
> pwq->triggered can't be further re-ordered with the reading of p->state.

Agreed.



> > +	/* clear triggered for the next iteration */
> > +	pwq->triggered = 0;
> 
> And don't we (in theory) actually need the mb() here instead?
> 
> Let's suppose do_poll() starts the next iteration, so we are doing
> 
> 	pwq->triggered = 0;
> 
> 	->poll(file)
> 		if (!check_file(file))
> 			return 0;
> 
> 		return POLLXXX;
> 
> We don't have any barriers in between (unless fget_light bumps
> ->f_count), so this can be reordered as
> 
> 	->poll(file)
> 		if (!check_file(file))
> 			return 0;
> 
> 		pwq->triggered = 0;
> 
> And, if pollwake() happens in between we can miss the event, no?

About ->triggered, on the sys_poll() side we have:

do_pollfd()
	file->f_op->poll()
		poll_wait(file, QUEUE, WAIT);
			add_wait_queue(QUEUE, WAIT);
				spin_lock(QUEUE->lock);
				...
				spin_unlock(QUEUE->lock);
		return dev->events;
...
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
if (!got_events && !triggered)
	schedule();

Device side:

dev->events = XXXX;
__wake_up(QUEUE);
	spin_lock(QUEUE->lock);
	pollwake(WAIT);
		triggered = 1;
		default_wake_function();
			__try_to_wake_up();
	spin_unlock(QUEUE->lock);

AFAICS,  because of  the  lock taken,  and  because of the 
set_current_state()/schedule() logic, there's no need on any ->triggered 
synchronization.
Either we're on the device QUEUE, or we see the new dev->events, so no 
wakeup or events can be lost.
The only thing that can happen, is that a device before this reported 
events ready, so we're following up the loop with WAIT==NULL and 
poll_wait() not dropping into the QUEUE (hence not grabbing the QUEUE 
lock). But at that point it doesn't matter because got_events!=0.
IMO there's no need for any mb() on ->triggered. Check?



- Davide


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