linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys

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: <20140812191218.GA15210@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:12:18 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sanjay Rao <srao@...hat.com>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] time: drop do_sys_times spinlock

On 08/12, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> Back in 2009, Spencer Candland pointed out there is a race with
> do_sys_times, where multiple threads calling do_sys_times can
> sometimes get decreasing results.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/3/522
>
> As a result of that discussion, some of the code in do_sys_times
> was moved under a spinlock.
>
> However, that does not seem to actually make the race go away on
> larger systems. One obvious remaining race is that after one thread
> is about to return from do_sys_times, it is preempted by another
> thread, which also runs do_sys_times, and stores a larger value in
> the shared variable than what the first thread got.
>
> This race is on the kernel/userspace boundary, and not fixable
> with spinlocks.

Not sure I understand...

Afaics, the problem is that a single thread can observe the decreasing
(say) sum_exec_runtime if it calls do_sys_times() twice without the lock.

This is because it can account the exiting sub-thread twice if it races
with __exit_signal() which increments sig->sum_sched_runtime, but this
exiting thread can still be visible to thread_group_cputime().

IOW, it is not actually about decreasing, the problem is that the lockless
thread_group_cputime() can return the wrong result, and the next ys_times()
can show the right value.

> Back in 2009, in changeset 2b5fe6de5 Oleg Nesterov already found
> that it should be safe to remove the spinlock.

Yes, it is safe but only in a sense that for_each_thread() is fine lockless.
So this change was reverted.

Oleg.

--
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/