linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] loop: Limit the number of requests in the bio list

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, 14 Nov 2012 08:21:41 -0700
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	jmoyer@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] loop: Limit the number of requests in the bio list

On 2012-11-14 02:02, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
>> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:42:58 -0700
>> From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>> To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
>>     jmoyer@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] loop: Limit the number of requests in the bio list
>>
>>> @@ -489,6 +491,12 @@ static void loop_make_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *old_bio)
>>>  		goto out;
>>>  	if (unlikely(rw == WRITE && (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_READ_ONLY)))
>>>  		goto out;
>>> +	if (lo->lo_bio_count >= q->nr_congestion_on) {
>>> +		spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
>>> +		wait_event(lo->lo_req_wait, lo->lo_bio_count <
>>> +			   q->nr_congestion_off);
>>> +		spin_lock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
>>> +	}
>>
>> This makes me nervous. You are reading lo_bio_count outside the lock. If
>> you race with the prepare_to_wait() and condition check in
>> __wait_event(), then you will sleep forever.
> 
> Hi Jens,
> 
> I am sorry for being dense, but I do not see how this would be
> possible. The only place we increase the lo_bio_count is after that
> piece of code (possibly after the wait). Moreover every time we're
> decreasing the lo_bio_count and it is smaller than nr_congestion_off
> we will wake_up().
> 
> That's how wait_event/wake_up is supposed to be used, right ?

It is, yes. But you are checking the condition without the lock, so you
could be operating on a stale value. The point is, you have to safely
check the condition _after prepare_to_wait() to be completely safe. And
you do not. Either lo_bio_count needs to be atomic, or you need to use a
variant of wait_event() that holds the appropriate lock before
prepare_to_wait() and condition check, then dropping it for the sleep.

See wait_even_lock_irq() in drivers/md/md.h.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/