linux-kernel - Re: epoll: possible bug from wakeup

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:	Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:37:42 -0700
From:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
To:	Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
Cc:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: epoll: possible bug from wakeup_source activation

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> wrote:
> Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net> wrote:
>> > What happens if ep_modify calls ep_destroy_wakeup_source
>> > while __pm_stay_awake is running on the same epi->ws?
>>
>> Yes, that looks like a problem. I think calling
>> ep_destroy_wakeup_source with ep->lock held should fix that. It is not
>> clear how useful changing EPOLLWAKEUP in ep_modify is, so
>> alternatively we could remove that feature and instead only allow it
>> to be set in ep_insert.
>
> ep->lock would work, but ep->lock is already a source of heavy
> contention in my multithreaded+epoll webservers.
>

This should not have any significant impact on that since you would be
adding a lock to a code path that is, as far as I know, unused.

> Perhaps RCU can be used?  I've no experience with RCU, but I've been
> meaning to get acquainted with RCU.
>

That adds code to the common path however. The wakeup_source is not
touch without holding one of the locks so holding both locks before
deleting it seems like a simpler solution.

> Another possible solution is to only use ep->ws and add an atomic
> counter to ep; so __pm_relax(ep->ws) is only called when the atomic
> counter reaches zero.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
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/