linux-kernel - Re: rcu_dereference() without protection in select_task_rq

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:	Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:04:09 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rcu_dereference() without protection in select_task_rq_fair()

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:12:38AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 08:52 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello, Peter,
> > 
> > My lockdep-ified RCU complains about the for_each_domain() in
> > select_task_rq_fair(), see below for the lockdep complaint.  I added
> > rcu_dereference_check() annotations as follows:
> > 
> > #define for_each_domain_rd(p) \
> >         rcu_dereference_check((p), \
> >                               rcu_read_lock_sched_held() || \
> >                               lockdep_is_held(&sched_domains_mutex))
> > 
> > #define for_each_domain(cpu, __sd) \
> >         for (__sd = for_each_domain_rd(cpu_rq(cpu)->sd); __sd; __sd = __sd->parent)
> > 
> > In other words, I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that for_each_domain()
> > can be called either within an RCU-sched read-side critical section or
> > with sched_domains_mutex held.  Lockdep claims that no locks of any
> > kind, RCU or otherwise, were held.  I considered the possibility that
> > this was an initialization-time thing, but the code traverses CPU
> > structures rather than task structures.
> > 
> > One other possibility is that this is safe due to the fact that we are
> > booting up, before the second CPU has come online.  Are you relying on
> > this?
> > 
> > For reference, here is the definition of rcu_read_lock_sched_held():
> > 
> > static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
> > {
> >         int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> > 
> >         if (debug_locks)
> >                 lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> >         return lockdep_opinion || preempt_count() != 0;
> > }
> > 
> > Help? 
> 
> We use synchronize_sched() and preempt_disable() for the sched domain
> stuff. The comment above for_each_domain():
> 
> /*
>  * The domain tree (rq->sd) is protected by RCU's quiescent state transition.
>  * See detach_destroy_domains: synchronize_sched for details.
>  *
>  * The domain tree of any CPU may only be accessed from within
>  * preempt-disabled sections.
>  */
> #define for_each_domain(cpu, __sd) \
>         for (__sd = rcu_dereference(cpu_rq(cpu)->sd); __sd; __sd = __sd->parent)
> 
> explains this usage, also see detach_destroy_domains().
> 
> So one thing you can do is add (preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) to
> the rcu_read_lock_sched_held() function to catch all those cases that
> rely on preemption without having to add annotations to everything that
> disables preemption.

OK, but doesn't the "preempt_count() != 0" that is in the current version
of rcu_read_lock_sched_held() already cover this check?

In other words, I believe that I have located a usage of for_each_domain()
that violates the rule that it may only be called within preempt-disabled
sections.

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/