linux-kernel - Re: Add memory barrier when waiting on futex

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1385407137.12342.34.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:18:57 -0800
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Ma, Xindong" <xindong.ma@...el.com>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable-commits@...r.kernel.org" <stable-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	"ccross@...gle.com" <ccross@...gle.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Tu, Xiaobing" <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Add memory barrier when waiting on futex

On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 15:39 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 01:15:17PM +0000, Ma, Xindong wrote:
> > We encountered following panic several times:
> 
> > [   74.671982] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000008
> > [   74.672101] IP: [<c129bb27>] wake_futex+0x47/0x80
> 
> > [   74.674144]  [<c129bc29>] futex_wake+0xc9/0x110
> > [   74.674195]  [<c129da0b>] do_futex+0xeb/0x950
> > [   74.674484]  [<c129e30b>] SyS_futex+0x9b/0x140
> > [   74.674582]  [<c195a718>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> > 
> > On smp systems, setting current task to q->task in queue_me() may
> > not visible immediately to another cpu, some times this will
> > cause panic in wake_futex(). Adding memory barrier to avoid this.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Ma <xindong.ma@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: xiaobing tu <xiaobing.tu@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/futex.c |    1 +
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> > index 80ba086..792cd41 100644
> > --- a/kernel/futex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> > @@ -1529,6 +1529,7 @@ static inline void queue_me(struct futex_q *q, struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
> >  	plist_node_init(&q->list, prio);
> >  	plist_add(&q->list, &hb->chain);
> >  	q->task = current;
> > +	smp_mb();
> >  	spin_unlock(&hb->lock);
> >  }
> 
> This is wrong, because an uncommented barrier is wrong per definition.
> 
> This is further wrong because wake_futex() is always called with
> hb->lock held, and since queue_me also has hb->lock held, this is in
> fact guaranteed.

Indeed. Leon Ma, would you have a test case to share? I'm interested to
see how this was possible.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel


--
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/