linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] posix timers: use SIGQUEUE

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: <20080518174646.GA25915@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Sun, 18 May 2008 21:46:46 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Austin Clements <amdragon+kernelbugzilla@....edu>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] posix timers: use SIGQUEUE_CANCELLED when the timer is destroyed

On 05/18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 18 May 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 
> > Initially, I did
> > 
> > 	q->flags |= SIGQUEUE_CANCELLED;
> > 	spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> > 	q->flags &= ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC;
> > 
> > to document the fact that SIGQUEUE_CANCELLED can be set lockless, but
> > then "optimized" the code, couldn't help myself... Besides, the code
> > above looks really confusing without the fat comment.
> 
> Oh, and the above is *wrong*.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Becayse if SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC setting needs the lock, then setting any 
> *other* bit in that word will also need the lock!
> 
> That's because
> 
> 	q->flags |= SIGQUEUE_CANCELLED;
> 
> writes those other bits too - admittedly with the value they were read 
> just before, but if it races with something setting SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC that 
> doesn't matter - the newly written version will simply be wrong.
> 
> So the rule is that if one bit of a word needs locking, then they *all* 
> do.

Ah. I wasn't clear.

Clearing of SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC needs ->siglock, yes. But not because anybody
else can write to q->flags. Nobody can, we (the timer) "own" this sigqueue.

Once we clear SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC, "q" can be freed by the receiver (it doesn't
writes to q->flags, it only reads ->flags). After that we can't trust the
list_empty() check, we just can't dereference this "struct sigqueue *".

Taking ->siglock before "&= ~SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC" ensures that "q" can't be
be freed if it is queued, nothing more.

Oleg.

--
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/