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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 22:27:12 +0800
From:   焦晓冬 <milestonejxd@...il.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: resend, finish_wait with list_empty_careful maybe fragile or buggy

+ CC Boqun
in case you are interested in this topic

Best Regards,
Trol

> 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
>
> Best regards,
> Trol