linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #14388] keyboard under X with 2.6.31

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: <20091014182037.GA10076@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:20:37 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>,
	Boyan <btanastasov@...oo.co.uk>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [Bug #14388] keyboard under X with 2.6.31

On 10/14, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Of course, keventd itself is multi-threaded, so I'm not entirely sure even
> -that- guarantees that one 'flush_to_ldisc()' couldn't be pending on one
> CPU while it is then scheduled and then run on another CPU concurrently
> too. The WORK_STRUCT_PENDING bit guarantees exclusion from the lists and
> from being pending, but the work might be both pending and _running_ at
> the same time, afaik.

Yes.

>  void tty_flush_to_ldisc(struct tty_struct *tty)
>  {
> -	flush_to_ldisc(&tty->buf.work.work);
> +	flush_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work);
>  }

Can't comment this change because I don't understand the problem.

> + * flush_delayed_work - block until a dwork_struct's callback has terminated
> + * @dwork: the delayed work which is to be flushed
> + *
> + * Any timeout is cancelled, and any pending work is run immediately.
> + */
> +void flush_delayed_work(struct delayed_work *dwork)
> +{
> +	if (del_timer(&dwork->timer)) {
> +		struct cpu_workqueue_struct *cwq;
> +		cwq = wq_per_cpu(keventd_wq, get_cpu());
> +		__queue_work(cwq, &dwork->work);
> +		put_cpu();
> +	}
> +	flush_work(&dwork->work);
> +}

I think this is correct. If del_timer() succeeds, we "own" _PENDING bit and
dwork->work must not be queued. But afaics this helper needs del_timer_sync(),
otherwise I am not sure about the "flush" part.

Let's suppose this dwork was pending and del_timer() returns 0. Since we use
del_timer, not del_timer_sync, it is possible that delayed_work_timer_fn() is
running in parallel, and the queueing is in progress. In this case flush_work()
can just return, before delayed_work_timer_fn() actually queues this dwork.

And just in case... Of course, if dwork was pending and running on another CPU,
then flush_delayed_work(dwork) can return before the running callback terminates.
But I guess this is what we want.

As for tty_flush_to_ldisc(), what if tty->buf.work.work was not scheduled?
In this case flush_delayed_work() does nothing. Is it OK?

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/