linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] epoll: Support for disabling items, and a self-test app.

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: <CAKgNAkj=52rPitKT2b4_=dwczpfub6RQojjX4rNhFZQZHecSTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:23:24 +0200
From:	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:	"Paton J. Lewis" <palewis@...be.com>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Holland <pholland@...be.com>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	"libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] epoll: Support for disabling items, and a self-test app.

Hi Pat,


>> I suppose that I have a concern that goes in the other direction. Is
>> there not some other solution possible that doesn't require the use of
>> EPOLLONESHOT? It seems overly restrictive to require that the caller
>> must employ this flag, and imposes the burden that the caller must
>> re-enable monitoring after each event.
>>
>> Does a solution like the following (with no requirement for EPOLLONESHOT)
>> work?
>>
>> 0. Implement an epoll_ctl() operation EPOLL_CTL_XXX
>>    where the name XXX might be chosen based on the decision
>>    in 4(a).
>> 1. EPOLL_CTL_XXX employs a private flag, EPOLLUSED, in the
>>    per-fd events mask in the ready list. By default,
>>    that flag is off.
>> 2. epoll_wait() always clears the EPOLLUSED flag if a
>>    file descriptor is found to be ready.
>> 3. If an epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_XXX) discovers that the EPOLLUSED
>>    flag is NOT set, then
>>         a) it sets the EPOLLUSED flag
>>         b) It disables I/O events (as per EPOLL_CTL_DISABLE)
>>            (I'm not 100% sure if this is necesary).
>>         c) it returns EBUSY to the caller
>> 4. If an epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_XXX) discovers that the EPOLLUSED
>>    flag IS set, then it
>>         a) either deletes the fd or disables events for the fd
>>            (the choice here is a matter of design taste, I think;
>>            deletion has the virtue of simplicity; disabling provides
>>            the option to re-enable the fd later, if desired)
>>         b) returns 0 to the caller.
>>
>> All of the above with suitable locking around the user-space cache.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> I don't believe that proposal will solve the problem. Consider the case
> where a worker thread has just executed epoll_wait and is about to execute
> the next line of code (which will access the data associated with the fd
> receiving the event). If the deletion thread manages to call
> epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_XXX) for that fd twice in a row before the worker thread
> is able to execute the next statement, then the deletion thread will
> mistakenly conclude that it is safe to destroy the data that the worker
> thread is about to access.

Okay -- I had the idea there might be a hole in my proposal ;-).

By the way, have you been reading the comments in the two LWN articles
on EPOLL_CTL_DISABLE?
https://lwn.net/Articles/520012/
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/520198/fd81ba0ecb1858a2/

There's some interesting proposals there--some suggesting that an
entirely user-space solution might be possible. I haven't looked
deeply into the ideas though.

Cheers,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/
--
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/