linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4] rwsem: fix rwsem_is

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: <4ACEFC26.3000603@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:02:30 +0800
From:	Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Woodard <bwoodard@...l.gov>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@...l.gov>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs

David Howells wrote:
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> rwsem_is_locked() tests ->activity without locks, so we should always
>> keep ->activity consistent. However, the code in __rwsem_do_wake()
>> breaks this rule, it updates ->activity after _all_ readers waken up,
>> this may give some reader a wrong ->activity value, thus cause
>> rwsem_is_locked() behaves wrong.
>>
>> Quote from Andrew:
>>
>> "
>> - we have one or more processes sleeping in down_read(), waiting for access.
>>
>> - we wake one or more processes up without altering ->activity
>>
>> - they start to run and they do rwsem_is_locked().  This incorrectly
>>   returns "false", because the waker process is still crunching away in
>>   __rwsem_do_wake().
>>
>> - the waker now alters ->activity, but it was too late.
>> "
>>
>> So we need get a spinlock to protect this. And rwsem_is_locked()
>> should not block, thus we use spin_trylock.
>>
>> Reported-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@...l.gov>
>> Cc: Ben Woodard <bwoodard@...l.gov>
>> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@...hat.com>
> 
> I'd say the comment in __rwsem_do_wake() is unnecessary, but other than
> that...


The reason why I added it is to show that we have considered that
case already. :) If you have strong opinions to remove it, I can
update the patch.

> 
> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>


Thanks!
--
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/