[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A42DA2.5080101@cybernetics.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:25:54 -0500
From: Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/6] epoll fixes and cleanups
[forgot to CC linux-kernel]
Patch #1 fixes an important bug where epoll_wait can incorrectly
return events for closed fds. Below is a test program that can
reliably test for the problem. This bug has the potential to confuse
or crash userspace programs, so I consider it to be high-priority.
For example, a program could crash if it closes a fd, frees the
associated event.data.ptr, calls epoll_wait, and then gets back an
event with the freed event.data.ptr.
The test program uses a thread blocked in read() to keep the struct
file refcount from dropping to 0. Then a different thread does close()
and then epoll_wait(), and epoll_wait() incorrectly returns an event
on the closed fd. There are many more ways to trigger the bug with
a multi-threaded userspace program. A single-threaded userspace
program may also trigger the bug if the kernel ever calls fput() from
outside a system call (e.g. from keventd or some other kernel thread).
It is difficult to know all the potential ways that the bug could be
triggered without doing an audit of a lot of kernel code.
Patches #2 and #3 fix some minor issues; the rest are just cleanups.
I would like to have patch #1 included in 2.6.29 and -stable.
Assuming that everyone agrees that the patch is indeed important,
it will unfortunately conflict with some of the patches currently
in -mm and linux-next that are queued for 2.6.30. Some of my other
5 patches also conflict with the epoll patches currently in -mm, but
they are lower priority and do not need to go into 2.6.29 or -stable.
So I will post two versions of my patchset - one against 2.6.29 and
one against the current epoll patches in -mm. I will need some help
from the authors of the other patches in -mm to resolve the conflicts
against my patch #1; my patches #2 - #6 hopefully won't conflict if
you use the versions for -mm and apply after the other patches in -mm.
I have never handled this situation before, so my apologies if I am
stepping on anyone's toes.
Other things I noticed while auditing epoll code:
The following functions could use spin_lock_irq() instead
of spin_lock_irqsave(): ep_remove, ep_insert, ep_modify,
ep_scan_ready_list, and ep_poll. One of my patches changes
ep_modify to use spin_lock_irq while making some other changes, but
I haven't done anything with the others. Some people prefer to use
spin_lock_irqsave() always because it is harder to use incorrectly,
so it is just a matter of preference.
epoll uses wake_up_locked() instead of wake_up() for ep->wq although
it never uses eq->wq.lock; presumably ep->lock outside of the
wait_queue_head_t protects the wait queue internals, but I don't see
this documented anywhere.
---
/*
This program tests for a bug in the kernel's implementation of epoll where
epoll_wait can incorrectly return an event on a fd that has been closed.
You can work around the kernel bug by calling epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_DEL) before
closing the fd.
Compile:
gcc -D_REENTRANT -o epoll_wait_bug epoll_wait_bug.c -lpthread
*/
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <sys/epoll.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#define EPOLL_DATA_MAGIC 0x1234567890123456ULL
static int fd[2];
static void *thread_func(void *arg)
{
for (;;)
{
char ch;
if (read(fd[0], &ch, sizeof(ch)) <= 0)
{
break;
}
}
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
pthread_attr_t detached_thread_attr;
pthread_t thread;
struct epoll_event evt;
int epfd;
int ret;
int exit_status = EXIT_FAILURE;
epfd = epoll_create(1);
if (epfd == -1)
{
perror("epoll_create");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if (socketpair(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0, fd))
{
perror("socketpair");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
evt.events = EPOLLOUT;
evt.data.u64 = EPOLL_DATA_MAGIC;
if (epoll_ctl(epfd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, fd[0], &evt))
{
perror("epoll_ctl EPOLL_CTL_ADD");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
pthread_attr_init(&detached_thread_attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&detached_thread_attr,
PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
if (pthread_create(&thread,
&detached_thread_attr,
&thread_func,
NULL))
{
perror("pthread_create");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
sleep(1);
#if 0
/* This works around the kernel bug. */
if (epoll_ctl(epfd, EPOLL_CTL_DEL, fd[0], &evt))
{
perror("epoll_ctl EPOLL_CTL_DEL");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
#endif
close(fd[0]);
memset(&evt, 0, sizeof(evt));
ret = epoll_wait(epfd, &evt, 1, 100);
switch (ret)
{
case -1 :
perror("epoll_wait");
break;
case 0 : /* timeout */
printf("This kernel does not have the epoll_wait bug.\n");
exit_status = EXIT_SUCCESS;
break;
case 1 :
if (evt.data.u64 == EPOLL_DATA_MAGIC)
{
/* This is what happens for kernels with the bug. */
printf("KERNEL BUG DETECTED: epoll_wait returned an event on a "
"closed fd\n");
}
else
{
printf("KERNEL BUG DETECTED: epoll_wait returned a bad event\n");
}
break;
default :
printf("KERNEL BUG DETECTED: epoll_wait returned unexpected value "
"%d\n", ret);
}
return exit_status;
}
--
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