linux-kernel - Re: resend, finish_wait with list_empty

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, 12 Mar 2018 09:51:58 +0800
From:   焦晓冬 <milestonejxd@...il.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: resend, finish_wait with list_empty_careful maybe fragile or buggy

> Sorry, this is a resend because the previous one was messed
> up by my editor and hard to be read.
>
> void finish_wait(
> struct wait_queue_head *wq_head,
> struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
> {
>        ....
> ->    if (!list_empty_careful(&wq_entry->entry)) {
> ->        spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
> ->        list_del_init(&wq_entry->entry);
> ->        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
> ->    }
> }
>
> After careful look into the stop/wakeup code, I found
> the above code fragile or even buggy. This code was
> introduced at least 14 years ago and seems fragile or
> buggy now after years of study on SMP synchronization
> by us.
>
> I understand this code are being used a lot and no bug
> seems to emerge. But, as I'll explain, it depends on a lot
> of unreliable implementation details.
>
> Firstly,
>
> static inline int list_empty_careful(const struct list_head *head)
> {
>     struct list_head *next = head->next;
>     return (next == head) && (next == head->prev);
> }
>
> note that the read of head->next & head->prev is not
> protected by READ_ONCE. So the read is free to be
> optimized out entirely. Luckily, this optimization is hard
> for compilers now, since all other accesses are out of
> finish_wait. And still, GCC won't spit aligned accesses
> into multiple instructions so it is atomic so far.
>
> Secondly,
>
> if ( ! list_empty_careful(&wq_entry->entry) ) {
>      <remove entry with spinning-lock>
> }
> <ends stack frame of the function calling finish_wait>
> <overwrites wq_entry with another frame>
>
> and
>
> __wake_up_common()   -->
> <read wq_entry->func>  -->
> <read wq_entry->flags>  -->
> autoremove_wake_function()  -->
> <remove wq_entry->entry from wait queue>  -->
>
> are not properly ordered for SMP so that  <read wq_entry->flags>
> may be reordered after <remove wq_entry->entry from wait queue>
> since no dependency or memory barrier forbids it. This may cause
> <overwrites wq_entry with another frame> on one CPU takes place
> before <read wq_entry->flags> on another CPU and cause
> <read wq_entry->flags> to return bad value.
>
> This behavior is not reported may thank to:
> - few code is using autoremove_wake_function
> - CPU pipeline is not as deep as to make this emerge
>

Hi, mingo, peterz

Would you please have a look at it if it won't waste you much time.
Thanks a lot.

CC scheduler maintainers

Best regards,
Patrick Trol