linux-kernel - Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/core: Reset task' s lockless wake-queues on fork()

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, 8 Jan 2016 10:41:51 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	bigeasy@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dbueso@...e.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
cc:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/core: Reset task' s lockless wake-queues
 on fork()

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, tip-bot for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> Commit-ID:  093e5840ae76f1082633503964d035f40ed0216d
> Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/093e5840ae76f1082633503964d035f40ed0216d
> Author:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> AuthorDate: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:17:10 +0100
> Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> CommitDate: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:01:07 +0100
> 
> sched/core: Reset task's lockless wake-queues on fork()
> 
> In the following commit:
> 
>   7675104990ed ("sched: Implement lockless wake-queues")
> 
> we gained lockless wake-queues.
> 
> The -RT kernel managed to lockup itself with those. There could be multiple
> attempts for task X to enqueue it for a wakeup _even_ if task X is already
> running.
> 
> The reason is that task X could be runnable but not yet on CPU. The the
> task performing the wakeup did not leave the CPU it could performe
> multiple wakeups.
> 
> With the proper timming task X could be running and enqueued for a
> wakeup. If this happens while X is performing a fork() then its its
> child will have a !NULL `wake_q` member copied.
> 
> This is not a problem as long as the child task does not participate in
> lockless wakeups :)
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Fixes: 7675104990ed ("sched: Implement lockless wake-queues")

Shouldn't that go into stable?

Thanks,

	tglx