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, 6 Nov 2006 01:53:38 +0300
From:	Oleg Nesterov <>
To:	Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Steven Rostedt <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
Subject: Re: PATCH? hrtimer_wakeup: fix a theoretical race wrt rt_mutex_slowlock()

On 11/05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > When task->array != NULL, try_to_wake_up() just goes to "out_running" and sets
> > task->state = TASK_RUNNING.
> > 
> > In that case hrtimer_wakeup() does:
> > 
> > 	timeout->task = NULL;		<----- [1]
> > 
> > 	spin_lock(runqueues->lock);
> > 
> > 	task->state = TASK_RUNNING;	<----- [2]
> > 
> > from Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > 
> > 	Memory operations that occur before a LOCK operation may appear to
> > 	happen after it completes.
> > 
> > This means that [2] may be completed before [1], and
> Yes. On x86 (and x86-64) you'll never see this, because writes are always 
> seen in order regardless, and in addition, the spin_lock is actually 
> totally serializing anyway. On most other architectures, the spin_lock 
> will serialize all the writes too, but it's not guaranteed, so in theory 
> you're right. I suspect no actual architecture will do this, but hey, 
> when talking memory ordering, safe is a lot better than sorry.
> That said, since "task->state" in only tested _inside_ the runqueue lock, 
> there is no race that I can see. Since we've gotten the runqueue lock in 
> order to even check task-state, the processor that _sets_ task state must 
> not only have done the "spin_lock()", it must also have done the 
> "spin_unlock()", and _that_ will not allow either the timeout or the task 
> state to haev leaked out from under it (because that would imply that the 
> critical region leaked out too).
> So I don't think the race exists anyway - the schedule() will return 
> immediately (because it will see TASK_RUNNING), and we'll just retry.

schedule() will see TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. hrtimer_wakeup() sets TASK_RUNNING,
rt_mutex_slowlock() does set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) after that.
schedule() takes runqueue lock, yes, but we are testing timeout->task before.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists