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]

Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:44:55 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...gle.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?

On 06/21, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> So, I am thinking about the first attempt
>
> 	#define while_each_thread(g, t) \
> 		while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g && pid_alive(g))
>
> again. But this means while_each_thread() can miss more threads
> than it currently can under the same conditions. Correct, but
> not good.

Not good, but correct ;) Probably it makes sense to fix the problem
anyway, then think about the more optimal fix.

	static inline struct task_struct *
	next_thread_careful(const struct task_struct *g, const struct task_struct *t)
	{
		t = next_thread(t);
		/*
		 * this pairs with the implicit barrier between detach_pid()
		 * and list_del_rcu(g->thread_group) in __unhash_process(g).
		 */
		smp_rmb();
		if (likely(pid_alive(g)))
			return t;
		else
			return g;
	}

	#define while_each_thread(g, t) \
		while ((t = next_thread_careful(t)) != g)

I think this should work. detach_pid() does unlock + lock at least
once and thus we have the barrier (this worth a comment or we
can add the explicit wmb() in __unhash_process).

Paul, Roland, do you see any problems from the correctness pov,
or a better fix for now?

Perhaps it also makes sense to keep the old variant renamed to
while_each_thread_locked(), I dunno.

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/