linux-kernel - [tip:core/urgent] mutex: Fix optimistic spinning vs. BKL

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <tip-fd6be105b883244127a734ac9f14ae94a022dcc0@git.kernel.org>
Date:	Wed, 19 May 2010 07:56:43 GMT
From:	tip-bot for Tony Breeds <tony@...eyournoodle.com>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, stable@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...e.hu, tony@...eyournoodle.com
Subject: [tip:core/urgent] mutex: Fix optimistic spinning vs. BKL

Commit-ID:  fd6be105b883244127a734ac9f14ae94a022dcc0
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/fd6be105b883244127a734ac9f14ae94a022dcc0
Author:     Tony Breeds <tony@...eyournoodle.com>
AuthorDate: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:46:36 +1000
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CommitDate: Wed, 19 May 2010 08:18:44 +0200

mutex: Fix optimistic spinning vs. BKL

Currently, we can hit a nasty case with optimistic
spinning on mutexes:

    CPU A tries to take a mutex, while holding the BKL

    CPU B tried to take the BLK while holding the mutex

This looks like a AB-BA scenario but in practice, is
allowed and happens due to the auto-release on
schedule() nature of the BKL.

In that case, the optimistic spinning code can get us
into a situation where instead of going to sleep, A
will spin waiting for B who is spinning waiting for
A, and the only way out of that loop is the
need_resched() test in mutex_spin_on_owner().

This patch fixes it by completely disabling spinning
if we own the BKL. This adds one more detail to the
extensive list of reasons why it's a bad idea for
kernel code to be holding the BKL.

Signed-off-by: Tony Breeds <tony@...eyournoodle.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: <stable@...nel.org>
LKML-Reference: <20100519054636.GC12389@...abs.org>
[ added an unlikely() attribute to the branch ]
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
---
 kernel/mutex.c |    7 +++++++
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/mutex.c b/kernel/mutex.c
index 632f04c..4c0b7b3 100644
--- a/kernel/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/mutex.c
@@ -172,6 +172,13 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 		struct thread_info *owner;
 
 		/*
+		 * If we own the BKL, then don't spin. The owner of
+		 * the mutex might be waiting on us to release the BKL.
+		 */
+		if (unlikely(current->lock_depth >= 0))
+			break;
+
+		/*
 		 * If there's an owner, wait for it to either
 		 * release the lock or go to sleep.
 		 */
--
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/