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: <20141020104926.GD23751@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:49:26 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Matteo Franchin <Matteo.Franchin@....com>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Ensure get_futex_key_refs() always implies a
 barrier

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:11:40AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 13:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't even be called for private futexes.
> > > > The following patch had some very minor testing on a 60 core box last
> > > > night, but passes both Darren's and perf's tests. So I *think* this is
> > > > right, but lack of sleep and I overall just don't trust them futexes!
> > > 
> > > Hmm. I don't see the advantage of making the code more complex in
> > > order to avoid the functions that are no-ops for the !fshared case?
> > > 
> > > IOW, as far as I can tell, this patch doesn't actually really *change*
> > > anything. Am I missing something?
> > 
> > Right, all we do is avoid a NOP, but I don't see how this patch makes
> > the code more complex. In fact, the whole idea is to make it easier to
> > read and makes the key referencing differences between shared and
> > private futexes crystal clear, hoping to mitigate future bugs. 
> 
> I tend to disagree. The current code is symetric versus get/drop and
> you make it unsymetric by avoiding the drop call with a pointless
> extra conditional in all call sites.

Since you mention symmetry, something like below makes the barriers more
explicit. However, it removes the implied barrier for get_futex_key_refs
and the other calling places need to be verified (requeue_futex and
requeue_pi_futex; if barrier is not required here, the result may be
slightly more optimal, not sure you would see the difference though).


diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index f3a3a071283c..5b9d857d0816 100644
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -143,9 +143,7 @@
  *
  * 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.
+ * to futex and the waiters read (see hb_waiters_pending).
  *
  * This yields the following case (where X:=waiters, Y:=futex):
  *
@@ -262,12 +260,6 @@ static struct futex_hash_bucket *futex_queues;
 static inline void futex_get_mm(union futex_key *key)
 {
 	atomic_inc(&key->private.mm->mm_count);
-	/*
-	 * Ensure futex_get_mm() implies a full barrier such that
-	 * get_futex_key() implies a full barrier. This is relied upon
-	 * as full barrier (B), see the ordering comment above.
-	 */
-	smp_mb__after_atomic();
 }
 
 /*
@@ -297,6 +289,10 @@ static inline void hb_waiters_dec(struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
 
 static inline int hb_waiters_pending(struct futex_hash_bucket *hb)
 {
+	/*
+	 * Full barrier (B), see the ordering comment above.
+	 */
+	smp_mb__before_atomic();
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 	return atomic_read(&hb->waiters);
 #else
@@ -338,13 +334,11 @@ static void get_futex_key_refs(union futex_key *key)
 
 	switch (key->both.offset & (FUT_OFF_INODE|FUT_OFF_MMSHARED)) {
 	case FUT_OFF_INODE:
-		ihold(key->shared.inode); /* implies MB (B) */
+		__iget(key->shared.inode);
 		break;
 	case FUT_OFF_MMSHARED:
-		futex_get_mm(key); /* implies MB (B) */
+		futex_get_mm(key);
 		break;
-	default:
-		smp_mb(); /* explicit MB (B) */
 	}
 }
 
@@ -417,7 +411,7 @@ get_futex_key(u32 __user *uaddr, int fshared, union futex_key *key, int rw)
 	if (!fshared) {
 		key->private.mm = mm;
 		key->private.address = address;
-		get_futex_key_refs(key);  /* implies MB (B) */
+		get_futex_key_refs(key);
 		return 0;
 	}
 
@@ -524,7 +518,7 @@ again:
 		key->shared.pgoff = basepage_index(page);
 	}
 
-	get_futex_key_refs(key); /* implies MB (B) */
+	get_futex_key_refs(key);
 
 out:
 	unlock_page(page_head);
--
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/