linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/9] Fix various __task_cred related invalid RCU assumptions

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: <20091214015347.GB7710@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:53:47 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] Fix various __task_cred related invalid RCU
	assumptions

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 07:56:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 21:34 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > Ah -- I have a related lockdep question.  Is there a primitive that says
> > whether or not the current task holds at least one lock of any type?
> > If so, I would like to make rcu_dereference() do at least a little crude
> > checking for this problem.
> 
> Hmm, no, but that's not hard to do, however I actually implemented
> something like that for RCU a long while ago and that gives a metric TON
> of false positives due to things like the radix tree which are RCU-safe
> but are not required to be used with RCU.

Understood -- my current guess is that there needs to be a way to tag
a variant of the rcu_dereference() API with the conditions that must be
met, for example, either in an rcu-sched read-side critical section or
holding a specific type of lock.

This does make it a little harder to retroactively add checking to
existing calls to rcu_dereference(), but should allow a good balance
between false positives and false negatives going forward.

Seem reasonable, or am I still missing something?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/