linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/11] sched: Debug nested sleeps

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: <20141002213425.GB12446@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 2 Oct 2014 23:34:25 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, ilya.dryomov@...tank.com,
	umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] sched: Debug nested sleeps

On 10/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 08:35:49PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > For example, let's suppose that we do not have 01/11 which fixes
> > mutex_lock(). Then this code
> >
> > 	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > 	...
> > 	fixup_sleep();
> > 	...
> > 	mutex_lock(some_mutex);
> >
> > can hang, but only if !CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP.
>
> Right, but we should not use fixup_sleep() in this case,

(well, I am not really sure but this is off-topic and I agree this needs
 another discussion)

> because its an
> actual proper bug, we should fix it, not paper over it.

Exactly! this is what I meant: CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP will hide the
bug we need to fix.

> > So perhaps it makes sense to redefine it
> >
> > 	#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
> > 	#define fixup_sleep()	(current->task_state_change = 0)
> > 	#else
> > 	#define fixup_sleep()	do { } while (0)
> > 	#endif
> >
> > and change __might_sleep()
> >
> > 	-	if (WARN(current->state != TASK_RUNNING,
> > 	+	if (WARN(current->state != TASK_RUNNING && current->task_state_change != 0,
> >
> > ?
>
> So I'm hesitant to go that way because it adds extra state dependency.

OK. We can always reconsider this later. I spammed you only because I
wanted to understand what did me/you/both missed in this discussion.

> What if someone 'forgets' to use the *set*state() helpers.

Yes, this is true. Although we want to fix them anyway, if nothing else
for this warning in might_sleep().

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/