linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] printk: Relocate wake_klogd check close to the end of console

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, 19 Feb 2018 16:58:17 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk: Relocate wake_klogd check close to the end of
 console_unlock()

On Thu 2018-02-08 14:04:02, Petr Mladek wrote:
> From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> 
> We mark for waking up klogd whenever we see a new message sequence in
> the main loop.  However, the actual wakeup is always at the end of the
> function and we can easily test for the wakeup condition when we do
> the final should-we-repeat check.
> 
> Move the wake_klogd condition check out of the main loop.  This avoids
> doing the same thing repeatedly and groups similar checks into a
> common place.
> 
> This fixes a race introduced by the commit dbdda842fe96f8932 ("printk: Add
> console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes").
> The current console owner might process the newly added message before
> the related printk() start waiting for the console lock. Then the lock
> is passed without waking klogd. The new owner sees the already updated
> seen_seq and does not know that the wakeup is needed.
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index db4b9b8929eb..2682209b1c90 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -2417,12 +2413,17 @@ void console_unlock(void)
>  	up_console_sem();
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Someone could have filled up the buffer again, so re-check if there's
> -	 * something to flush. In case we cannot trylock the console_sem again,
> -	 * there's a new owner and the console_unlock() from them will do the
> -	 * flush, no worries.
> +	 * Check whether userland needs notification.  Also, someone could
> +	 * have filled up the buffer again, so re-check if there's
> +	 * something to flush. In case we cannot trylock the console_sem
> +	 * again, there's a new owner and the console_unlock() from them
> +	 * will do the flush, no worries.
>  	 */
>  	raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> +	if (seen_seq != log_next_seq) {
> +		wake_klogd = true;
> +		seen_seq = log_next_seq;

Sigh, there is actually still a race with console_trylock_spinning().
We might see the updated log_next_seq here while the related
printk() might steal the lock in retry path.

The simplest solution seems to be to do this only when !retry.
I am going to send v3.

> +	}
>  	retry = console_seq != log_next_seq;
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
>  	printk_safe_exit_irqrestore(flags);

Best Regards,
Petr