linux-kernel - do_wait() vs do_notify_parent

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: <20081123215511.GB9097@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:55:11 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, roland@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	rnalumasu@...il.com
Subject: do_wait() vs do_notify_parent_cldstop() theoretical race?

Looking at do_wait(), suddenly I am starting to suspect we have the
highly theoretical race with do_notify_parent_cldstop().

	do_wait:

		add_wait_queue(...);

		current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;

		read_lock(tasklist_lock);

		... try to find the "interesting" task ...

		read_unlock(tasklist_lock);

		if (!retval)	// not found
			schedule();

We don't race with do_notify_parent() because it takes tasklist
for writing. But do_notify_parent_cldstop() can run in parallel
under read_lock(tasklist).

Now suppose that "->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE" leaks deeply into
the critical section. In theory, it is possible that wait_consider_task()
checks task_is_stopped_or_traced() or SIGNAL_STOP_CONTINUED first, then
CPU sets state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. And we can miss the event if
do_notify_parent_cldstop() happens in between.

No?

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/