| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140612203518.GZ4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:35:18 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand
unprotected when accessed by /proc)
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 07:28:44PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 07:59:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 06/11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking of ->boost_completion as the way to solve it easily, but
> > > > what did you have in mind?
> > >
> > > I meant, rcu_boost() could probably just do "mtx->owner = t", we know that
> > > it was unlocked by us and nobody else can use it until we set
> > > t->rcu_boost_mutex.
> >
> > My concern with this is that rcu_read_unlock_special() could hypothetically
> > get preempted (either by kernel or hypervisor), so that it might be a long
> > time until it makes its reference. But maybe that reference would be
> > harmless in this case.
>
> Confused... Not sure I understand what did you mean, and certainly I do not
> understand how this connects to the proxy-locking method.
>
> Could you explain?
Here is the hypothetical sequence of events, which cannot happen unless
the CPU releasing the lock accesses the structure after releasing
the lock:
CPU 0 CPU 1 (booster)
releases boost_mutex
acquires boost_mutex
releases boost_mutex
post-release boost_mutex access?
Loops to next task to boost
proxy-locks boost_mutex
post-release boost_mutex access:
confused due to proxy-lock
operation?
Now maybe this ends up being safe, but it sure feels like an accident
waiting to happen. Some bright developer comes up with a super-fast
handoff, and blam, RCU priority boosting takes it in the shorts. ;-)
In contrast, using the completion prevents this.
> > > And if we move it into rcu_node, then we can probably kill ->rcu_boost_mutex,
> > > rcu_read_unlock_special() could check rnp->boost_mutex->owner == current.
> >
> > If this was anywhere near a hot code path, I would be sorely tempted.
>
> Ah, but I didn't mean perfomance. I think it is always good to try to remove
> something from task_struct, it is huge. I do not mean sizeof() in the first
> place, the very fact that I can hardly understand the purpose of a half of its
> members makes me sad ;)
Now -that- just might make a huge amount of sense! Let's see...
o We hold the rcu_node structure's ->lock when checking the owner
(looks like rt_mutex_owner() is the right API).
o We hold the rcu_node structure's ->lock when doing
rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked().
o We -don't- hold ->lock when releasing the rt_mutex, but that
should be OK: The owner is releasing it, and it is going to
not-owned, so no other task can possibly see ownership moving
to/from them.
o The rcu_node structure grows a bit, but not enough to worry
about, and on most systems, the decrease in task_struct size
will more than outweigh the increase in rcu_node size.
Looks quite promising, how about the following? (Hey, it builds, so it
must be correct, right?)
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rcu: Simplify priority boosting by putting rt_mutex in rcu_node
RCU priority boosting currently checks for boosting via a pointer in
task_struct. However, this is not needed: As Oleg noted, if the
rt_mutex is placed in the rcu_node instead of on the booster's stack,
the boostee can simply check it see if it owns the lock. This commit
makes this change, shrinking task_struct by one pointer and the kernel
by three lines.
Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
b/include/linux/sched.h | 3 ---
b/kernel/rcu/tree.h | 3 +++
b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 19 ++++++++-----------
3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 25f54c79f757..6b90114764ff 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1222,9 +1222,6 @@ struct task_struct {
#ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
struct rcu_node *rcu_blocked_node;
#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
-#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
- struct rt_mutex *rcu_boost_mutex;
-#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
#if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
struct sched_info sched_info;
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
index 31194ee9dfa6..db3f096ed80b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
@@ -177,6 +177,9 @@ struct rcu_node {
/* to carry out the boosting is fully */
/* released with no future boostee accesses */
/* before that rt_mutex is re-initialized. */
+ struct rt_mutex boost_mtx;
+ /* Used only for the priority-boosting */
+ /* side effect, not as a lock. */
unsigned long boost_time;
/* When to start boosting (jiffies). */
struct task_struct *boost_kthread_task;
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 99743e9ea8ed..7628095f1c47 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -398,11 +398,9 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks)
rnp->boost_tasks = np;
- /* Snapshot/clear ->rcu_boost_mutex with rcu_node lock held. */
- if (t->rcu_boost_mutex) {
- rbmp = t->rcu_boost_mutex;
- t->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
- }
+ /* Snapshot/clear ->boost_mutex with rcu_node lock held. */
+ if (rt_mutex_owner(&rnp->boost_mtx) == t)
+ rbmp = &rnp->boost_mtx;
#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
/*
@@ -1151,7 +1149,6 @@ static void rcu_wake_cond(struct task_struct *t, int status)
static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
{
unsigned long flags;
- struct rt_mutex mtx;
struct task_struct *t;
struct list_head *tb;
@@ -1202,14 +1199,14 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
* section.
*/
t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
- rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
- t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
+ rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&rnp->boost_mtx, t);
init_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
- rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
- rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */
+ /* Lock only for side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
+ rt_mutex_lock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
+ rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx); /* Then keep lockdep happy. */
- /* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
+ /* Wait for boostee to be done w/boost_mtx before reinitializing. */
wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
return ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks) != NULL ||
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists