linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC kenrel/rcu] Eliminate BUG

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:   Wed, 31 Oct 2018 18:26:05 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC kenrel/rcu] Eliminate BUG_ON() for sync.c

On 10/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 06:14:40PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Damn.
> > > >
> > > > This suddenly reminds me that I rewrote this code completely, and you even
> > > > reviewed the new implementation and (iirc) acked it!
> > > >
> > > > However, I failed to force myself to rewrite the comments, and that is why
> > > > I didn't send the "official" patch :/
> > > >
> > > > May be some time...
> > >
> > > Could you please point me at the last email thread?  Yes, I should be
> > > able to find it, but I would probably get the wrong one.  :-/
> >
> > probably this one,
> >
> > 	[PATCH] rcu_sync: simplify the state machine, introduce __rcu_sync_enter()
> > 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/16/150
> >
> > but I am not sure, will recheck tomorrow.
>
> Just following up...  Here is what I currently have.

Hmm. Are you sure you replied to the correct message? ;)

the patch below looks absolutely unrelated...

>
> 							Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> commit 1c1d315dfb7049d0233b89948a3fbcb61ea15d26
> Author: Dennis Krein <Dennis.Krein@...app.com>
> Date:   Fri Oct 26 07:38:24 2018 -0700
>
>     srcu: Lock srcu_data structure in srcu_gp_start()
>
>     The srcu_gp_start() function is called with the srcu_struct structure's
>     ->lock held, but not with the srcu_data structure's ->lock.  This is
>     problematic because this function accesses and updates the srcu_data
>     structure's ->srcu_cblist, which is protected by that lock.  Failing to
>     hold this lock can result in corruption of the SRCU callback lists,
>     which in turn can result in arbitrarily bad results.
>
>     This commit therefore makes srcu_gp_start() acquire the srcu_data
>     structure's ->lock across the calls to rcu_segcblist_advance() and
>     rcu_segcblist_accelerate(), thus preventing this corruption.
>
>     Reported-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
>     Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Dennis Krein <Dennis.Krein@...app.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> index 60f3236beaf7..697a2d7e8e8a 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c
> @@ -451,10 +451,12 @@ static void srcu_gp_start(struct srcu_struct *sp)
>
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&ACCESS_PRIVATE(sp, lock));
>  	WARN_ON_ONCE(ULONG_CMP_GE(sp->srcu_gp_seq, sp->srcu_gp_seq_needed));
> +	spin_lock_rcu_node(sdp);  /* Interrupts already disabled. */
>  	rcu_segcblist_advance(&sdp->srcu_cblist,
>  			      rcu_seq_current(&sp->srcu_gp_seq));
>  	(void)rcu_segcblist_accelerate(&sdp->srcu_cblist,
>  				       rcu_seq_snap(&sp->srcu_gp_seq));
> +	spin_unlock_rcu_node(sdp);  /* Interrupts remain disabled. */
>  	smp_mb(); /* Order prior store to ->srcu_gp_seq_needed vs. GP start. */
>  	rcu_seq_start(&sp->srcu_gp_seq);
>  	state = rcu_seq_state(READ_ONCE(sp->srcu_gp_seq));
>