linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/backing-dev.c: Call del_timer_sync instead of del

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:	Fri, 2 Sep 2011 10:47:03 +0530
From:	"kautuk.c @samsung.com" <consul.kautuk@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/backing-dev.c: Call del_timer_sync instead of del_timer

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu,  1 Sep 2011 21:27:02 +0530
> Kautuk Consul <consul.kautuk@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> This is important for SMP scenario, to check whether the timer
>> callback is executing on another CPU when we are deleting the
>> timer.
>>
>
> I don't see why?
>
>> index d6edf8d..754b35a 100644
>> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
>> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
>> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
>>                * dirty data on the default backing_dev_info
>>                */
>>               if (wb_has_dirty_io(me) || !list_empty(&me->bdi->work_list)) {
>> -                     del_timer(&me->wakeup_timer);
>> +                     del_timer_sync(&me->wakeup_timer);
>>                       wb_do_writeback(me, 0);
>>               }
>
> It isn't a use-after-free fix: bdi_unregister() safely shoots down any
> running timer.
>

In the situation that we do a del_timer at the same time that the
wakeup_timer_fn is
executing on another CPU, there is one tiny possible problem:
1)  The wakeup_timer_fn will call wake_up_process on the bdi-default thread.
      This will set the bdi-default thread's state to TASK_RUNNING.
2)  However, the code in bdi_writeback_thread() sets the state of the
bdi-default process
    to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE as it intends to sleep later.

If 2) happens before 1), then the bdi_forker_thread will not sleep
inside schedule as is the
intention of the bdi_forker_thread() code.

This protection is not achieved even by acquiring spinlocks before
setting the task->state
as the spinlock used in wakeup_timer_fn is &bdi->wb_lock whereas the code in
bdi_forker_thread acquires &bdi_lock which is a different spin_lock.

Am I correct in concluding this ?

> Please completely explain what you believe the problem is here.
>
--
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/