linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:35:41 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Chuck Lever <cel@...i.umich.edu>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4] wait: prevent waiter starvation in __wait_on_bit_lock

On 01/23, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 09:25:50PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/21, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > >
> > 	int finish_wait_xxx(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
> > 	{
> > 		unsigned long flags;
> > 		int woken;
> >
> > 		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > 		spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> > 		woken = list_empty(&wait->task_list);
> > 		list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
> > 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> >
> > 		return woken;
> > 	}
>
> Hehe, there is only n solutions to this problem.  I had thought about
> that too, even written it down.  But I was not sure if taking the
> spinlock, toggling irqs and (re)storing the flags is better than an
> untaken branch. ;)

Yes. Fortunately, this is "unlikely" path.

> > 		if (test_bit(q->key.bit_nr, q->key.flags)) {
> > 			if ((ret = (*action)(q->key.flags))) {
> > 				if (finish_wait_xxx(...))
> > 					__wake_up_bit(...);
> > 				return ret;
> > 			}
> > 		}
>
> If you don't mind putting a second finish_wait() in there (you still
> need the one after the loop, right?), we can fix up my version to not
> check ret twice but do finish_wait() as you describe and then the
> test_bit() && wake up:
>
> 	do {
> 		if (test_bit())
> 			if ((ret = action())) {
> 				finish_wait()
> 				smp_rmb()
> 				if (!test_bit())
> 					__wake_up_bit()

Yes sure. Except this wakeup can be false.

> > 	int finish_wait_yyy(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait,
> > 				int mode, void *key)
> > 	{
> > 		unsigned long flags;
> > 		int woken;
> >
> > 		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > 		spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> > 		woken = list_empty(&wait->task_list);
> > 		if (woken)
> > 			__wake_up_common(q, mode, 1, key);
> > 		else
> > 			list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
> > 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> >
> > 		return woken;
> > 	}
> >
> > Perhaps a bit too much for this particular case, but I am thinking
> > about other cases when we need to abort the exclusive wait.
> >
> > For example, don't we have the similar problems with
> > wait_event_interruptible_exclusive() ?
>
> Yeah, we do IIUC.  Then having finish_wait() extended is probably a
> good idea.

Yes.

It is no that I think this new helper is really needed for this
particular case, personally I agree with the patch you sent.

But if we have other places with the similar problem, then perhaps
it is better to introduce the special finish_wait_exclusive() or
whatever.

Oleg.

--
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/