linux-kernel - lock_task_sighand() && rcu

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 3 May 2014 18:11:33 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: lock_task_sighand() && rcu_boost()

Paul,

I just noticed by accident that __lock_task_sighand() looks ugly and
mysterious ;) And I am puzzled.

a841796f11c90d53 "signal: align __lock_task_sighand() irq disabling and RCU"
says:

	The __lock_task_sighand() function calls rcu_read_lock() with interrupts
	and preemption enabled, but later calls rcu_read_unlock() with interrupts
	disabled.  It is therefore possible that this RCU read-side critical
	section will be preempted and later RCU priority boosted, which means that
	rcu_read_unlock() will call rt_mutex_unlock() in order to deboost itself, but
	with interrupts disabled. This results in lockdep splats ...

OK, if we can't rcu_read_unlock() with irqs disabled, then we can at least
cleanup it (and document the problem). Say,

	struct sighand_struct *__lock_task_sighand(struct task_struct *tsk,
						   unsigned long *flags)
	{
		struct sighand_struct *sighand;

		rcu_read_lock();
		for (;;) {
			sighand = rcu_dereference(tsk->sighand);
			if (unlikely(sighand == NULL))
				break;

			spin_lock_irqsave(&sighand->siglock, *flags);
			/*
			 * We delay rcu_read_unlock() till unlock_task_sighand()
			 * to avoid rt_mutex_unlock(current->rcu_boost_mutex) with
			 * irqs disabled.
			 */
			if (likely(sighand == tsk->sighand))
				return sighand;
			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sighand->siglock, *flags);
		}
		rcu_read_unlock();

		return sighand;	/* NULL */
	}

and add rcu_read_unlock() into unlock_task_sighand().

But. I simply can't understand why lockdep should complain? Why it is bad
to lock/unlock ->wait_lock with irqs disabled?

wakeup_next_waiter() and rt_mutex_adjust_prio() should be fine, they start
with _irqsave().

The changelog also says:

	It is quite possible that a better long-term fix is to make rt_mutex_unlock()
	disable irqs when acquiring the rt_mutex structure's ->wait_lock.

and if it is actually bad, then how the change above can fix the problem?

Help!

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/