linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Create new task with twice disabled preemption

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: <1392381205.5384.39.camel@tkhai>
Date:	Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:33:25 +0400
From:	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC:	Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Create new task with twice disabled
 preemption

В Птн, 14/02/2014 в 12:21 +0000, Catalin Marinas пишет:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:16:09AM +0000, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > В Птн, 14/02/2014 в 10:52 +0000, Catalin Marinas пишет:
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:32:22PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > > Look at ARM64's finish_arch_post_lock_switch(). It looks a task
> > > > must to not be preempted between switch_mm() and this function.
> > > > But in case of new task this is possible.
> > > 
> > > We had a thread about this at the end of last year:
> > > 
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/15/82
> > >
> > > There is indeed a problem on arm64, something like this (and I think
> > > s390 also needs a fix):
> > > 
> > > 1. switch_mm() via check_and_switch_context() defers the actual mm
> > >    switch by setting TIF_SWITCH_MM
> > > 2. the context switch is considered 'done' by the kernel before
> > >    finish_arch_post_lock_switch() and therefore we can be preempted to a
> > >    new thread before finish_arch_post_lock_switch()
> > > 3. The new thread has the same mm as the preempted thread but we
> > >    actually missed the mm switching in finish_arch_post_lock_switch()
> > >    because TIF_SWITCH_MM is per thread rather than mm
> > > 
> > > > This is the problem I tried to solve. I don't know arm64, and I can't
> > > > say how it is serious.
> > > 
> > > Have you managed to reproduce this? I don't say it doesn't exist, but I
> > > want to make sure that any patch actually fixes it.
> > 
> > No, I have not tried. I found this place while analysing scheduler code.
> > But it seems with the RT technics suggested previous message it's quite
> > possible.
> 
> Now I think I confused myself. Looking through the __schedule() code,
> context_switch() and therefore finish_arch_post_lock_switch() are called
> with preemption disabled. So the scenario above cannot exist since the
> current thread cannot be preempted between switch_mm() and
> finish_arch_post_lock_switch(). Do I miss anything?

Everything is right, the only case, which we have to worry, is
schedule_tail()

> Now I get your point about schedule_tail() which calls
> finish_task_switch() with a preempt count of 0. I'll get back to your
> original patch.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Kirill

--
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/