linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to 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:	Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:03:40 -0800
From:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, jeffm@...e.com,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>, tom.vaden@...com,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] futex: Avoid taking hb lock if nothing to wakeup

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
>> In futex_wake() there is clearly no point in taking the hb->lock if
>> we know beforehand that there are no tasks to be woken. This comes
>> at the smaller cost of doing some atomic operations to keep track of
>> the list's size.
>
> Hmm. Why? Afaik, you only care about "empty or not". And if you don't
> need the serialization from locking, then afaik you can just do a
> "plist_head_empty()" without holding the lock.
>
> NOTE!
>
> The "list_empty()" function is very much designed to work even without
> holding a lock (as long as the head itself exists reliably, of course)
> BUT you have to then guarantee yourself that your algorithm doesn't
> have any races wrt other CPU's adding an entry to the list at the same
> time. Not holding a lock obviously means that you are not serialized
> against that.. We've had problems with people doing
>
>     if (!list_empty(waiters))
>         wake_up_list(..)
>
> because they wouldn't wake people up who just got added.
>
> But considering that your atomic counter checking has the same lack of
> serialization, at least the plist_head_empty() check shouldn't be any
> worse than that counter thing.. And doesn't need any steenking atomic
> ops or a new counter field.

Hi Linus,

In this patch, since we do the atomic increments before holding the
hb->lock during situations where we may potentially add a task to the
list, then we would only skip attempting the wake up if no other
thread has already held the hb->lock and is in the process of adding a
task to the list, in addition to the list being empty. Would this be
enough to protect it from any race condition?

Thanks,
Jason
--
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/