linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] time,signal: protect resource use statistics with seqlock

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: <CAFTL4hwfNyQPMfpca-=Ou7WoPjB6sE_7BVAcQrVDkBjjPVmPRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:34:18 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <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,signal: protect resource use statistics with seqlock

2014-08-14 3:57 GMT+02:00 Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/13/2014 08:43 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 05:03:24PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> --- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c +++
>>> b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c @@ -272,22 +272,8 @@ static int
>>> posix_cpu_clock_get_task(struct task_struct *tsk, if
>>> (same_thread_group(tsk, current)) err =
>>> cpu_clock_sample(which_clock, tsk, &rtn); } else { -         unsigned
>>> long flags; -                struct sighand_struct *sighand; - -             /* -             *
>>> while_each_thread() is not yet entirely RCU safe, -           * keep
>>> locking the group while sampling process -            * clock for now. -
>>> */ -         sighand = lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags); -             if (!sighand)
>>> -                    return err; - if (tsk == current ||
>>> thread_group_leader(tsk)) err =
>>> cpu_clock_sample_group(which_clock, tsk, &rtn); - -
>>> unlock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags); }
>>
>> I'm worried about such lockless solution based on RCU or read
>> seqcount because we lose the guarantee that an update is
>> immediately visible by all subsequent readers.
>>
>> Say CPU 0 updates the thread time and both CPU 1 and CPU 2 right
>> after that call clock_gettime(), with the spinlock we were
>> guaranteed to see the new update. Now with a pure seqlock read
>> approach, we guarantee a read sequence coherency but we don't
>> guarantee the freshest update result.
>>
>> So that looks like a source of non monotonic results.
>
> Which update are you worried about, specifically?
>
> The seq_write_lock to update the usage stat in p->signal will lock out
> the seqlock read side used to check those results.
>
> Is there another kind of thing read by cpu_clock_sample_group that you
> believe is not excluded by the seq_lock?

I mean the read side doesn't use a lock with seqlocks. It's only made
of barriers and sequence numbers to ensure the reader doesn't read
some half-complete update. But other than that it can as well see the
update n - 1 since barriers don't enforce latest results.
--
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/