linux-kernel - Re:Re: PROBLEM:a bug about pi-futex maybe let the program going to hang

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: <1d77e02c.13c15.12efbd90f7e.Coremail.scxby@163.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:43:49 +0800 (CST)
From:	xby <scxby@....com>
To:	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"xie.baoyou172958@....com.cn" <xie.baoyou172958@....com.cn>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Darren Hart" <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re:Re: PROBLEM:a bug about pi-futex maybe let the program going to
 hang


At 2011-03-28 16:26:22，"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 15:25 +0800, xby wrote:
>> hi, all.
>
>Works better if you also CC people who actually work on that code.
>
>>   Maybe, there is a bug about pi-futex, it would let the program in user-space going to hang.
>>  
>>   We have a board: CPU is powerpc 8572, two core. after ran one month, the state of pi-futex in user-space got bad: mutex->__data.__lock is 0x8000023e, mutex->__data.__count is 0, mutex->__data.__owner is 0.
>>  
>>   then, I review file "kernel/funtex.c"(the version is linux 2.6.38), found a case:
>>  
>>   if there are 3 thread, named threadA, threadB, threadC。thread A hold mutexM, threadB and threadC is waiting mutexM. They run as fllow steps:
>>  
>>   1. threadB and threadC sleep at line 1984.
>>   2. threadB receive a signal, then it will be wake up.
>>   3. threadA unlock mutexM, and give mutexM to threadB. 
>>   4. threadB call fixup_owner, try to give mutex to threadC.
>>   5. at line 1580, threadB trigger a addr-fault, then goto handle_fault.
>>   6. at line 1617, threadB release spinlock, then handle fault.
>>   7. threadC got spinlock, and call fixup_owner, and got mutexM.
>>   8. threadC give mutexM to threadB.
>>   9. threadB re-got spinlock, it will found "pi_state->owner == oldowner" and retry to fixup.
>>   10. threadB give mutexM to threadC, that's a bad thing.
>>  
>>   we have wrote a program, this program can prove all above.
>
>It would have been ever so much more useful if you'd have included that.

sorry, the code lies at office, and can't mail to all. I'm at home now ^-^

--
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/