linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] completely bonkers use of set_need_resched + VM_FAULT

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:	Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:11:25 +0200
From:	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	airlied@...ux.ie, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
	intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG] completely bonkers use of set_need_resched + VM_FAULT_NOPAGE

Op 12-09-13 17:06, Peter Zijlstra schreef:
> Hi Dave,
>
> So I'm poking around the preemption code and stumbled upon:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:                set_need_resched();
> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c:                        set_need_resched();
> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c:                        set_need_resched();
> drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_gem.c:          set_need_resched();
>
> All these sites basically do:
>
>   while (!trylock())
>   	yield();
>
> which is a horrible and broken locking pattern. 
>
> Firstly its deadlock prone, suppose the faulting process is a FIFOn+1
> task that preempted the lock holder at FIFOn.
>
> Secondly the implementation is worse than usual by abusing
> VM_FAULT_NOPAGE, which is supposed to install a PTE so that the fault
> doesn't retry, but you're using it as a get out of fault path. And
> you're using set_need_resched() which is not something a driver should
> _ever_ touch.
>
> Now I'm going to take away set_need_resched() -- and while you can
> 'reimplement' it using set_thread_flag() you're not going to do that
> because it will be broken due to changes to the preempt code.
>
> So please as to fix ASAP and don't allow anybody to trick you into
> merging silly things like that again ;-)
>
Agreed, but this is a case of locking inversion. How do you propose to get around that?

~Maarten
--
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/