linux-kernel - Re: Lots of bugs with current->state = TASK

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: <20100121105311.GB5017@nowhere>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:53:14 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: Lots of bugs with current->state = TASK_*INTERRUPTIBLE

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:47:41AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> What about something like the following (drivers/macintosh/adb.c):
> 
>         add_wait_queue(&state->wait_queue, &wait);
>         current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
> 
> 	for (;;) {
> 	        req = state->completed;
>                 if (req != NULL)
>                         state->completed = req->next;
>                 else if (atomic_read(&state->n_pending) == 0)
>                         ret = -EIO;
> 		if (req != NULL || ret != 0)
> 			break;
> 
>                 if (file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) {
>                         ret = -EAGAIN;
>                         break;
> 		}
>                 if (signal_pending(current)) {
>                         ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
>                         break;
>                 }
>                 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&state->lock, flags);
>                 schedule();
>         	spin_lock_irqsave(&state->lock, flags);
>         }
> 
>         current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
>         remove_wait_queue(&state->wait_queue, &wait);
> 
> There is a call to schedule eventually after the first current->state 
> assignment, but it is not right after.



Looks fine as spin_unlock includes a memory barrier, IIRC.

--
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/