linux-kernel - Re: /proc dcache deadlock in do

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: <m1ve7ngmp2.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:53:29 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: /proc dcache deadlock in do_exit

Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 02:38:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> I don't see why the schedule() will not return?  Because the task has
>> PF_EXITING set?  Doesn't TASK_DEAD do that?
>
> Ouch, I assumed you couldn't sleep safely anymore in release_task
> given it's the function that will free the task structure itself and
> there was no preempt related action anywhere close to it!
> delayed_put_task_struct can be called if a quiescent point is reached
> and any scheduling would exactly allow it to run (it requires quite a
> bit of a race, with local irq triggering a reschedule and the timer
> irq invoking the tasklet to run to free the task struct before do_exit
> finishes and all other cpus in quiescent state too).
>
> So a corollary question is how can it be safe to call
> preempt_disable() after call_rcu(delayed_put_task_struct)?


> Back in sles9 preempt_disable was implemented as
> _raw_write_unlock(&tasklist_lock) and it happened _before_
> release_task, and scheduling there wouldn't return because PF_DEAD was
> already set. If mainline can come back, it will crash for a different
> reason because the task struct is long gone by the time
> release_task+schedule() runs. Either ways, still a kernel crashing bug
> there is. Or is there some magic that prevents call_rcu + schedule to
> invoke the rcu callback?

I don't quite see where it comes from but there is another reference
on the task struct held by the scheduler  That we don't drop until
finish_task_switch with exit_state == TASK_DEAD.

So since we have one additional reference the task_struct won't
get freed.

We don't set TASK_DEAD until much later.

> So you may need to apply this one too (this one is needed to fix the
> second bug, my previous patch is needed after applying this one):

No.  We should be fine.

In fact it looks like this is just a sles9 issue and mainline is
fine, as we can safely schedule until just before the end of do_exit.

Eric
-
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/