netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

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:	Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:29:44 +0000
From:	Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@...jp.nec.com>
To:	Neil Brown <nfbrown@...ell.com>
CC:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier
 in sunrpc 

Neil Brown wrote:
> Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@...jp.nec.com> writes:
> 
>> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
>> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
>> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
>>
>> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
>> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
>> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
>> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
>> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
> 
> hi,
> this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
> 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
> forget.
> 
> A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
> will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
> waitqueue_active()??
<snip>

There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
kind of atomic operation before it.

Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
many cases and won't be a good idea.

Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
making the code look like this;
	if (wq)
		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).
---
Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 3rd IT Platform Department
                  | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation
                  | tatsu@...jp.nec.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html