linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add support for deferrable timers (respun)

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:	Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:55:42 -0700
From:	Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davej@...emonkey.org.uk,
	johnstul@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for deferrable timers (respun)

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:11:45AM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/27, Venki Pallipadi wrote:
> >
> >  	for (;;) {
> > -		base = timer->base;
> > +		tvec_base_t *prelock_base = timer->base;
> > +		base = timer_get_base(timer);
> >  		if (likely(base != NULL)) {
> >  			spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, *flags);
> > -			if (likely(base == timer->base))
> > +			if (likely(prelock_base == timer->base))
> >  				return base;
> 
> I don't think this is correct, at least in theory.
> 
> Suppose that
> 
> 	tvec_base_t *prelock_base = timer->base;
> 	base = timer_get_base(timer);
> 
> are re-ordered (the second LOAD happens after the first one), and the timer
> changes its base in between. Now, we lock the old base, and return it because
> "prelock_base == timer->base" == true.
> 

Great catch. Yes. this is a theoritical possibility, even though most compilers
would load base only once and use it for prelock_base and 'and' it for
base. Atleast that is what I see on i386/gcc.

Incremental patch below eliminates this race.

Index: new/kernel/timer.c
===================================================================
--- new.orig/kernel/timer.c	2007-03-26 15:19:35.000000000 -0800
+++ new/kernel/timer.c	2007-03-27 13:00:33.000000000 -0800
@@ -96,9 +96,9 @@
 	return tbase_get_deferrable(timer->base);
 }
 
-static inline struct tvec_t_base_s *timer_get_base(struct timer_list *timer)
+static inline struct tvec_t_base_s *tbase_get_base(struct tvec_t_base_s *base)
 {
-	return ((struct tvec_t_base_s *)((unsigned long)(timer->base) &
+	return ((struct tvec_t_base_s *)((unsigned long)base &
 	                                 ~TBASE_DEFERRABLE_FLAG));
 }
 
@@ -368,7 +368,7 @@
 
 	for (;;) {
 		tvec_base_t *prelock_base = timer->base;
-		base = timer_get_base(timer);
+		base = tbase_get_base(prelock_base);
 		if (likely(base != NULL)) {
 			spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, *flags);
 			if (likely(prelock_base == timer->base))
@@ -592,7 +592,7 @@
 	 * don't have to detach them individually.
 	 */
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(timer, tmp, &tv_list, entry) {
-		BUG_ON(timer_get_base(timer) != base);
+		BUG_ON(tbase_get_base(timer->base) != base);
 		internal_add_timer(base, timer);
 	}
 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/