linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched: prevent divide by zero error in cpu_avg_load_per

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811291107400.24125@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:19:47 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched: prevent divide by zero error in
 cpu_avg_load_per_task

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>  {
>  	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +	unsigned long nr_running = rq->nr_running;
>  
> -	if (rq->nr_running)
> -		rq->avg_load_per_task = rq->load.weight / rq->nr_running;
> +	if (nr_running)
> +		rq->avg_load_per_task = rq->load.weight / nr_running;
>  	else
>  		rq->avg_load_per_task = 0;

I don't think this necessarily fixes it.

There's nothing that keeps gcc from deciding not to reload rq->nr_running. 

Of course, in _practice_, I don't think gcc ever will (if it decides that 
it will spill, gcc is likely going to decide that it will literally spill 
the local variable to the stack rather than decide to reload off the 
pointer), but it's a valid compiler optimization, and it even has a name 
(rematerialization).

So I suspect that your patch does fix the bug, but it still leaves the 
fairly unlikely _potential_ for it to re-appear at some point.

We have ACCESS_ONCE() as a macro to guarantee that the compiler doesn't 
rematerialize a pointer access. That also would clarify the fact that we 
access something unsafe outside a lock.

			Linus
--
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/