linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix race between attach_task and cpuset

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]

Message-ID: <20070405070033.GB3435@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:30:33 +0530
From:	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To:	"Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix race between attach_task and cpuset_exit

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:55:01PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> >@@ -1257,8 +1260,8 @@ static int attach_task(struct cpuset *cs
> >
> >        put_task_struct(tsk);
> >        synchronize_rcu();
> >-       if (atomic_dec_and_test(&oldcs->count))
> >-               check_for_release(oldcs, ppathbuf);
> >+       if (oldcs_to_be_released)
> >+               check_for_release(oldcs_to_be_released, ppathbuf);
> >        return 0;
> > }
> 
> Is this part of the patch necessary? If we're adding a task_lock() in
> cpuset_exit(), then the problem that Vatsa described (both
> cpuset_attach_task() and cpuset_exit() decrementing the same cpuset
> count, and cpuset_attach_task() incrementing the count on a cpuset
> that the task doesn't eventually end up in) go away, since only one
> thread will retrieve the old value of the task's cpuset in order to
> decrement its count.

You *have* to drop/inc the refcount inside the task_lock, otherwise it is
racy.

	task_lock(T1);
	old_cs = T1->cputset (C1)
	atomic_inc(&C2->count);
	T1->cputset = C2;
	task_unlock();

	...

	synchronize_rcu();

	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&C1->count))
		check_for_release(..)

is incorrect. For ex: T1's refcount on C1 may have already been dropped
by now in cpuset_exit() and dropping the refcount again can lead to
negative refcounts. 
		.
> > void cpuset_exit(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > {
> >        struct cpuset *cs;
> >+       struct cpuset *oldcs_to_be_released = NULL;
> >
> >+       task_lock(tsk);
> >        cs = tsk->cpuset;
> >        tsk->cpuset = &top_cpuset;      /* the_top_cpuset_hack - see above 
> >        */
> >+       if (atomic_dec_and_test(&cs->count))
> >+               oldcs_to_be_released = cs;
> >+       task_unlock(tsk);
> >
> 
> I think this is still racy - at this point we're holding a reference
> on a cpuset that could have a zero count,

How's that possible? That you have a zero-refcount cpuset with non empty
tasks in it?

> and we don't hold
> manage_mutex or callback_mutex. So a concurrent rmdir could zap the
> directory and free the cpuset.

I don't think that is possible. Can you explain?

> Shouldn't we just put a task_lock()/task_unlock() around these lines
> and leave everything else as-is?
> 
> 	task_lock(tsk);
> 	cs = tsk->cpuset;
> 	tsk->cpuset = &top_cpuset;	/* the_top_cpuset_hack - see above */
> 	task_unlock(tsk)

If we don't drop refcount inside task_lock() it makes it racy with
attach_task(). 'cs' derived above may not be the right cpuset to drop
refcount on later in cpuset_exit.

-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/