linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 0/2] document ->sighand protection, rcu_read

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: <20140928214357.GA17874@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:43:57 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/2] document ->sighand protection, rcu_read_unlock()
	deadlocks

Paul, could you take these 2 doc patches? Assuming that you agree
with the comments, of course.

On 09/24, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 09:03:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Paul, will you agree if we turn it into
> > ...
> >      /*
> >       * On the succesfull return we hold ->siglock. According to comment
> >       * above rcu_read_unlock() this is against the rules, but scheduler
> >       * locks are fine under this lock, signal_wake_up() takes them too.
> >       */
> >      rcu_read_unlock();
>
> If you guys continue the guarantee of no deadlock, I am OK with this change.

Heh. Contrary to what I said (and you all were agree ;), this deadlock
is actually possible, so we can not remove the deadlock-avoidance from
__lock_task_sighand(). And I do not see how we can cleanup this code
because preempt_disable() + spin_lock() is not -rt friendly.

I think this deserves a bit of documentation, see 2/2. Perhaps this is
just me, but imo the current comment is a bit misleading.

"if the caller of rcu_read_unlock() already holds one of these locks ..."
is not a problem in fact. I mean, pi_lock or rq->lock are special enough,
nobody should ever call the outermost rcu_read_unlock() with these locks
held. rt_mutex->wait_lock should be fine too, also because ->boost_mtx
is private to rcu_boost() and rcu_read_unlock_special().

But. They can race with each other, and that is why rcu_read_unlock()
under (say) ->siglock can actually lead to deadlock. And only because
rt_mutex->wait_lock doesn't disable irqs. Or I am totally confused.

Perhaps we can change rtmutex.c to use raw_spin_lock_irqsave(), or do
something else...

Oleg.

 include/linux/rcupdate.h |    4 +++-
 kernel/fork.c            |    5 ++++-
 kernel/signal.c          |   12 +++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--
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/