| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:14:54 +0530
From: Kunal Shubham <k.shubham@...sung.com>
To: "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>
CC: VIVEK TRIVEDI <t.vivek@...sung.com>,
"amir73il@...il.com" <amir73il@...il.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
PANKAJ MISHRA <pankaj.m@...sung.com>,
Kunal Shubham <k.shubham@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for
response from userspace
>> On Fri 16-02-18 15:14:40, t.vivek@...sung.com wrote:
>> From: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@...sung.com>
>>
>> If fanotify userspace response server thread is frozen first,
>> it may fail to send response from userspace to kernel space listener.
>> In this scenario, fanotify response listener will never get response
>> from userepace and fail to suspend.
>>
>> Use freeze-friendly wait API to handle this issue.
>>
>> Same problem was reported here:
>> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=232270
>>
>> Freezing of tasks failed after 20.005 seconds
>> (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0)
>>
>> Backtrace:
>> [<c0582f80>] (__schedule) from [<c05835d0>] (schedule+0x4c/0xa4)
>> [<c0583584>] (schedule) from [<c01cb648>] (fanotify_handle_event+0x1c8/0x218)
>> [<c01cb480>] (fanotify_handle_event) from [<c01c8238>] (fsnotify+0x17c/0x38c)
>> [<c01c80bc>] (fsnotify) from [<c02676dc>] (security_file_open+0x88/0x8c)
>> [<c0267654>] (security_file_open) from [<c01854b0>] (do_dentry_open+0xc0/0x338)
>> [<c01853f0>] (do_dentry_open) from [<c0185a38>] (vfs_open+0x54/0x58)
>> [<c01859e4>] (vfs_open) from [<c0195480>] (do_last.isra.10+0x45c/0xcf8)
>> [<c0195024>] (do_last.isra.10) from [<c0196140>] (path_openat+0x424/0x600)
>> [<c0195d1c>] (path_openat) from [<c0197498>] (do_filp_open+0x3c/0x98)
>> [<c019745c>] (do_filp_open) from [<c0186b44>] (do_sys_open+0x120/0x1e4)
>> [<c0186a24>] (do_sys_open) from [<c0186c30>] (SyS_open+0x28/0x2c)
>> [<c0186c08>] (SyS_open) from [<c0010200>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x20)
>
> Yeah, good catch.
>
>> @@ -63,7 +64,9 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>>
>> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
>>
>> - wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
>> + while (!event->response)
>> + wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
>> + event->response);
>
> But if the process gets a signal while waiting, we will just livelock the
> kernel in this loop as wait_event_freezable() will keep returning
> ERESTARTSYS. So you need to be a bit more clever here...
Hi Jack,
Thanks for the quick review.
To avoid livelock issue, is it fine to use below change?
If agree, I will send v2 patch.
@@ -63,7 +64,11 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
- wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
+ while (!event->response) {
+ if (wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
+ event->response))
+ flush_signals(current);
+ }
Thanks
--------- Original Message ---------
Sender : Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Date : 2018-02-16 15:59 (GMT+5:30)
Title : Re: [PATCH] fanotify: allow freeze on suspend when waiting for response from userspace
To : VIVEK TRIVEDI<t.vivek@...sung.com>
CC : jack@...e.cz, amir73il@...il.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, PANKAJ MISHRA<pankaj.m@...sung.com>, Kunal Shubham<k.shubham@...sung.com>
On Fri 16-02-18 15:14:40, t.vivek@...sung.com wrote:
> From: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@...sung.com>
>
> If fanotify userspace response server thread is frozen first,
> it may fail to send response from userspace to kernel space listener.
> In this scenario, fanotify response listener will never get response
> from userepace and fail to suspend.
>
> Use freeze-friendly wait API to handle this issue.
>
> Same problem was reported here:
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=232270
>
> Freezing of tasks failed after 20.005 seconds
> (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0)
>
> Backtrace:
> [<c0582f80>] (__schedule) from [<c05835d0>] (schedule+0x4c/0xa4)
> [<c0583584>] (schedule) from [<c01cb648>] (fanotify_handle_event+0x1c8/0x218)
> [<c01cb480>] (fanotify_handle_event) from [<c01c8238>] (fsnotify+0x17c/0x38c)
> [<c01c80bc>] (fsnotify) from [<c02676dc>] (security_file_open+0x88/0x8c)
> [<c0267654>] (security_file_open) from [<c01854b0>] (do_dentry_open+0xc0/0x338)
> [<c01853f0>] (do_dentry_open) from [<c0185a38>] (vfs_open+0x54/0x58)
> [<c01859e4>] (vfs_open) from [<c0195480>] (do_last.isra.10+0x45c/0xcf8)
> [<c0195024>] (do_last.isra.10) from [<c0196140>] (path_openat+0x424/0x600)
> [<c0195d1c>] (path_openat) from [<c0197498>] (do_filp_open+0x3c/0x98)
> [<c019745c>] (do_filp_open) from [<c0186b44>] (do_sys_open+0x120/0x1e4)
> [<c0186a24>] (do_sys_open) from [<c0186c30>] (SyS_open+0x28/0x2c)
> [<c0186c08>] (SyS_open) from [<c0010200>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x20)
Yeah, good catch.
> @@ -63,7 +64,9 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>
> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
>
> - wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
> + while (!event->response)
> + wait_event_freezable(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq,
> + event->response);
But if the process gets a signal while waiting, we will just livelock the
kernel in this loop as wait_event_freezable() will keep returning
ERESTARTSYS. So you need to be a bit more clever here...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists