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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ada63s5w088.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:04:07 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Cc:	Eli Cohen <eli@....mellanox.co.il>, general@...ts.openfabrics.org
Subject: wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious failure under heavy load?

It seems that the current implementaton of wait_for_completion_timeout()
has a small problem under very high load for the common pattern:

	if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&done, timeout))
		/* handle failure */

because the implementation very roughly does (lots of code deleted to
show the basic flow):

	static inline long __sched
	do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x, long timeout, int state)
	{
		if (x->done)
			return timeout;

		do {
			timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
	
			if (!timeout)
				return timeout;
	
		} while (!x->done);
	
		return timeout;
	}

so if the system is very busy and x->done is not set when
do_wait_for_common() is entered, it is possible that the first call to
schedule_timeout() returns 0 because the task doing wait_for_completion
doesn't get rescheduled for a long time, even if it is woken up early
enough.  In this case, wait_for_completion_timeout() returns 0 without
even checking x->done again, and the code above falls into its failure
case purely for scheduler reasons, even if the hardware event or
whatever was being waited for happened early enough.

So would it make sense to add an extra test to do_wait_for() in the
timeout case and, say, return 1 if x->done is actually set?  Something
like the patch below?

A quick audit (not exhaustive) of wait_for_completion_timeout() callers
seems to indicate that no one actually cares about the return value in
the success case -- they just test for 0 (timed out) versus non-zero
(wait succeeded).

Thanks,
  Roland

diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index eaf6751..3d04ec1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -4405,7 +4405,12 @@ do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x, long timeout, int state)
 			spin_lock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
 			if (!timeout) {
 				__remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
-				return timeout;
+				if (x->done) {
+					x->done--;
+					return 1;
+				} else {
+					return 0;
+				}
 			}
 		} while (!x->done);
 		__remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ