linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special condition

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, 23 Dec 2011 16:41:37 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Motohiro Kosaki <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special
	condition

On 12/23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 09:42 +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> >
> > ----------------------------------+-----------------------------
> >                                   |
> >            CPU A                  |             CPU B
> > ----------------------------------+-----------------------------
> > TASK A calls exit()....
> >
> > do_exit()
> >
> >   exit_mm()
> >     down_read(mm->mmap_sem);
> >
> >     rwsem_down_failed_common()
> >
> >       set TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> >       set waiter.task <= task A
> >       list_add to sem->wait_list
> >            :
> >       raw_spin_unlock_irq()
> >       (I/O interruption occured)
> >
> >                                       __rwsem_do_wake(mmap_sem)
> >
> >                                         list_del(&waiter->list);
> >                                         waiter->task = NULL
> >                                         wake_up_process(task A)
> >                                           try_to_wake_up()
> >                                              (task is still
> >                                                TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
> >                                               p->on_rq is still 1.)
> >
> >                                               ttwu_do_wakeup()
> >                                                  (*A)
> >                                                    :
> >      (I/O interruption handler finished)
> >
> >       if (!waiter.task)
> >           schedule() is not called
> >           due to waiter.task is NULL.
> >
> >       tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING
> >
> >           :
> >                                               check_preempt_curr();
> >                                                   :
> >   task->state = TASK_DEAD
> >                                               (*B)
> >                                         <---    set TASK_RUNNING (*C)
> >
> >
> >
> >      schedule()
> >      (exit task is running again)
> >      BUG_ON() is called!
> > --------------------------------------------------------
>
> <snip>
>
> > This is very bad senario.
> > But, I suppose this phenomenon is able to occur on a guest system of
> > virtual machine too.
> >
> > Please fix it.
> >
> > I suppose task->pi_lock should be held when task->state is changed to
> > TASK_DEAD like the following patch (not tested yet).
> > Because try_to_wake_up() hold it before checking task state.
>
> I don't think this can actually happen, note the raw_spin_unlock_wait()
> in do_exit() long before setting TASK_DEAD, that should synchronize
> against the in-progress wakeup and ensure its finished and has set
> TASK_RUNNING.

How? raw_spin_unlock_wait() is calles before exit_mm(), then the exiting
task plays with its ->state.

IIRC, this was already discussed a bit. Say, try_to_wake_up(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
can wakeup a TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE task if it temporary sets INTERRUPTIBLE but
doesn't call schedule() in this state.

May be ttwu_do_wakeup() should do cmpxchg(old_state, RUNNING) ?

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/