linux-kernel - Re: [block IO crash] Re: 2.6.39-rc5-git2 boot crashs

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:	Wed, 4 May 2011 15:02:37 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	werner <w.landgraf@...ru>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [block IO crash] Re: 2.6.39-rc5-git2 boot crashs

On Wed, 4 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Tejun,
> > 
> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > Hmmm... if it's a race caused by preemtion enabled where it shouldn't
> > > be, it's most likely the wrong type of this_cpu_cmpxchg_double() being
> > > used in SLUB?  ie. __this_cpu_cmpxchg_double() where it should have
> > > been this_cpu_cmpxchg_double()?  Christoph?
> > 
> > There's no __this_cpu_cmpxchg_double() usage in mm/slub.c so I don't
> > think it's that simple.
> 
> Well, AFAICS the problem is:
> 
> earth4:~/tip> grep cmpxchg mm/slub.c 
> 
> 		if (unlikely(!this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(
> 		if (unlikely(!this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(
> 
> Where this macro resolves to:
> 
> #  define this_cpu_cmpxchg_double_8(pcp1, pcp2, oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2)     \
>         _this_cpu_generic_cmpxchg_double(pcp1, pcp2, oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2)
> 
> where:
> 
> #define _this_cpu_generic_cmpxchg_double(pcp1, pcp2, oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2)        \
> ({                                                                      \
>         int ret__;                                                      \
>         preempt_disable();                                              \
>         ret__ = __this_cpu_generic_cmpxchg_double(pcp1, pcp2,           \
>                         oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2);                    \
>         preempt_enable();                                              
> where:
> 
> #define __this_cpu_generic_cmpxchg_double(pcp1, pcp2, oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2)       \
> ({                                                                      \
>         int __ret = 0;                                                  \
>         if (__this_cpu_read(pcp1) == (oval1) &&                         \
>                          __this_cpu_read(pcp2)  == (oval2)) {           \
>                 __this_cpu_write(pcp1, (nval1));                        \
>                 __this_cpu_write(pcp2, (nval2));                        \
>                 __ret = 1;                                              \
>         }                                                               \
>         (__ret);                                                        \
> })
> 
> With is both IRQ and SMP unsafe.

SMP is not an issue because that's cpu local access, but it's
irq/softirq unsafe. See my other mail.

Thanks,

	tglx