linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition

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, 24 Jun 2013 16:32:26 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition

On 06/24/2013 03:13 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 14:49 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 06/24/2013 01:11 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 13:03 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 03:57 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>>>> On 06/21/2013 07:51 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	int retval = true;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* Spin only if active writer running */
>>>>>> +	if (!sem->owner)
>>>>>> +		return false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>>>>> +	if (sem->owner)
>>>>>> +		retval = sem->owner->on_cpu;
>>>>>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this a safe dereference? Could not another cpu have just
>>>>> dropped the sem (and thus set sem->owner to NULL and oops)?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> The rcu read lock should protect against sem->owner being NULL.
>>
>> It doesn't.
>>
>> Here's the comment from mutex_spin_on_owner():
>>
>>     /*
>>      * Look out! "owner" is an entirely speculative pointer
>>      * access and not reliable.
>>      */
>>
>
> In mutex_spin_on_owner, after rcu_read_lock, the owner_running()
> function de-references the owner pointer.

Only after establishing the following preconditions:
1. snapshot of owner is non-NULL
2. mutex->owner == snapshot owner
3. memory holding mutex has not been freed (that's what the
    rcu_read_lock() is for)

Only then is the owner dereferenced and only through the snapshot
(not the now-possibly-rewritten sem->owner).

> I'm using similar logic in rw-sem.

With crucial details absent.

Regards,
Peter Hurley


--
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/