linux-kernel - Re: while_each_thread() under rcu_read

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: <20100619053522.GA11264@nowhere>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:35:25 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Mandeep Baines <msb@...gle.com>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:00:54PM -0700, Mandeep Baines wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > (add cc's)
> >
> > Hmm. Once I sent this patch, I suddenly realized with horror that
> > while_each_thread() is NOT safe under rcu_read_lock(). Both
> > do_each_thread/while_each_thread or do/while_each_thread() can
> > race with exec().
> >
> > Yes, it is safe to do next_thread() or next_task(). But:
> >
> >        #define while_each_thread(g, t) \
> >                while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g)
> >
> > suppose that t is not the group leader, and it does de_thread() and then
> > release_task(g). After that next_thread(t) returns t, not g, and the loop
> > will never stop.
> >
> > I _really_ hope I missed something, will recheck tomorrow with the fresh
> > head. Still I'd like to share my concerns...
> >
> 
> Yep. You're right. Not sure what I was thinking. This is only case
> where do_each_thread
> is protected by an rcu_read_lock. All others, correctly use read_lock.



cgroup does too.
taskstats also uses rcu with while_each_threads, and may be some
others.

It's not your fault, theses iterators are supposed to be rcu safe,
we are just encountering a bad race :)


 
> > If I am right, probably we can fix this, something like
> >
> >        #define while_each_thread(g, t) \
> >                while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g && pid_alive(g))
> >
> 
> This seems like a reasonable approach. Maybe call it:
> 
> while_each_thread_maybe_rcu() :)



Hmm, no while_each_thread must really be rcu_safe.



> 
> This makes hung_task a little less useful for failure fencing since
> this (and rcu_lock_break)
> increases the potential for never examining all threads but its still
> a nice lightweight diagnostic
> for finding bugs.



In fact may be we could just drop the rcu break, people who really
care about latencies can use the preemptable version.

I know the worry is more about delaying too much the grace period if
we walk a too long task list, but I don't think it's really a problem.

--
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/