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]
Message-ID: <20140804210222.GU3935@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2014 23:02:22 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, ilya.dryomov@...tank.com,
	umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
	John McCutchan <john@...nmccutchan.com>,
	Robert Love <rlove@...ve.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] inotify: Deal with nested sleeps

On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:23:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >  	while (1) {
> > -		prepare_to_wait(&group->notification_waitq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > -
> >  		mutex_lock(&group->notification_mutex);
> 
> So yes, even these 2 lines look obviously buggy. Even if
> fsnotify_add_notify_event()->wake_up(&group->notification_waitq) uses
> TASK_NORMAL, so at least this can't miss an event.

There's another problem, mutex_lock() actively assumes ->state ==
TASK_RUNNING and if its not can go to sleep, possibly without ever being
woken again (because nobody knows its sleeping).

We should probably fix that too, but then its not too weird an
assumption for a blocking primitive.

> It is too later for me, but I am wondering if we can do another thing.
> Something like
> 
> 		int state;
> 
> 		prepare_to_wait(wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> 
> 		PUSH(&wait, state);
> 		mutex_lock();
> 		mutex_unlock();
> 		POP(&wait, state);
> 
> and, ignoring all races, lack of barriers, etc
> 
> 	#define PUSH(w, s)	s = current->state; current->state = RUNNING;
> 
> 	#define POP(w, s)	current->state = WOKEN(w) ? RUNNING : s;
> 
> Probably not... just curious.

Sure we can do a state stack, but I'm not immediately seeing the benefit
of doing so. Also I don't think we want to encourage people to do things
like this.

-rt does something like that for its spinlock->rt_mutex conversion.

In fact, you only need to push/pop around mutex_lock(), unlock will
never change state.
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ