linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2 4/4] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid starvation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:30:31 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -v2 4/4] locking/mutex: Add lock handoff to avoid
 starvation

On 08/25/2016 06:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 06:00:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 08/25/2016 02:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> @@ -468,9 +496,12 @@ void __sched mutex_unlock(struct mutex *
>>>   	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(__mutex_owner(lock) != current);
>>>   #endif
>>>
>>> -	owner = atomic_long_fetch_and(MUTEX_FLAGS,&lock->owner);
>>> +	owner = atomic_long_read(&lock->owner);
>>> +	if (!(owner&   MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF))
>>> +		owner = atomic_long_fetch_and(MUTEX_FLAGS,&lock->owner);
>>> +
>>>   	if (__owner_flags(owner))
>>> -		__mutex_unlock_slowpath(lock);
>>> +		__mutex_unlock_slowpath(lock, owner);
>>>   }
>>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_unlock);
>> I don't think the race condition is fixed when we don't make sure that lock
>> handoff only happens from current=>new. The problem is due to the fact that
>> the MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF check in the unlock fastpath isn't serialized by the
>> wait_lock. As a result, it is possible that the owner is NULL while the
>> HANDOFF bit is set. Or an optimistic spinner may have stolen the lock in the
>> interim.
> You're right.. I'll try again tomorrow.

Actually, it is also OK to handoff from NULL=>new, but nothing else is 
appropriate.

Cheers,
Longman