linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race with try_to_wake

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: <20140903133640.GA25439@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:36:40 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Kautuk Consul <consul.kautuk@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Ionut Alexa <ionut.m.alexa@...il.com>,
	Guillaume Morin <guillaume@...infr.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race
	with try_to_wake_up()

Peter, sorry for slow responses.

On 09/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:47:14PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > But since I already wrote v2 yesterday, let me show it anyway. Perhaps
> > you will notice something wrong immediately...
> >
> > So, once again, this patch adds the ugly "goto" into schedule(). OTOH,
> > it removes the ugly spin_unlock_wait(pi_lock).
>
> But schedule() is called _far_ more often than exit(). It would be
> really good not to have to do that.

Yes sure, performance-wise this is not a win. My point was, this way the
whole "last schedule" logic becomes very simple.

But OK, I buy your nack. I understand that we should not penalize
__schedule() if possible. Let's forget this patch.

> > TASK_DEAD can die. The only valid user is schedule_debug(), trivial to
> > change. The usage of TASK_DEAD in task_numa_fault() is wrong in any case.
> >
> > In fact, I think that the next change can change exit_schedule() to use
> > PREEMPT_ACTIVE, and then we can simply remove the TASK_DEAD check in
> > schedule_debug().
>
> So you worry about concurrent wakeups vs setting TASK_DEAD and thereby
> loosing it, right?
>
> Would not something like:
>
> 	spin_lock_irq(&current->pi_lock);
> 	__set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);
> 	spin_unlock_irq(&current->pi_lock);

Sure. This should obviously fix the problem.

And, I think, another mb() after unlock_wait should fix it as well.

> Not be race free and similarly expensive to the smp_mb() we have there
> now?

Ah, I simply do not know what is cheaper, even on x86. Well, we need
to enable/disable irqs, but again I do not really know how much does
this cost. I can even say what (imo) looks better, lock/unlock above
or

	// Ensure that the previous __set_current_state(RUNNING) can't
	// leak after spin_unlock_wait()
	smp_mb();
	spin_unlock_wait();
	// Another mb to ensure this too can't be reordered with unlock_wait
	set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);

What do you think looks better?

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/