linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] futex: Ensure get_futex_key

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: <5442C045.2040909@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:32:21 -0500
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	Matteo Franchin <Matteo.Franchin@....com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Ensure get_futex_key_refs() always implies a barrier

On 10/17/14 11:38, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb->lock if there's
> nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
> there are no waiters. This code has been subsequently fixed in commit
> 11d4616bd07f (futex: revert back to the explicit waiter counting code).
> Both the original commit and the fix-up rely on get_futex_key_refs() to
> always imply a barrier.
> 
> However, for private futexes, none of the cases in the switch statement
> of get_futex_key_refs() would be hit and the function completes without
> a memory barrier as required before checking the "waiters" in
> futex_wake() -> hb_waiters_pending(). The consequence is a race with a
> thread waiting on a futex on another CPU, allowing the waker thread to
> read "waiters == 0" while the waiter thread to have read "futex_val ==
> locked" (in kernel).


Verified that this is:

a) how it is documented to work
b) not how it actually works currently

Nice catch indeed.

...

> diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> index 815d7af2ffe8..f3a3a071283c 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> @@ -343,6 +343,8 @@ static void get_futex_key_refs(union futex_key *key)
>  	case FUT_OFF_MMSHARED:
>  		futex_get_mm(key); /* implies MB (B) */
>  		break;
> +	default:

A comment here indicating this covers the PROCESS_PRIVATE futex case
would be welcome, given the complexity involved.

> +		smp_mb(); /* explicit MB (B) */

Also, the "Basic" futex operation and ordering guarantees documentation
currently reads:

 * Where (A) orders the waiters increment and the futex value read through
 * atomic operations (see hb_waiters_inc) and where (B) orders the write
 * to futex and the waiters read -- this is done by the barriers in
 * get_futex_key_refs(), through either ihold or atomic_inc, depending
on the
 * futex type.

Which is not incomplete (lacking the explicit smp_mb()) added by this
patch. Perhaps the MB implementation of get_futex_key_refs() need not be
explicitly enumerated here?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/