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  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]
Date:	Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:56:04 +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: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] document ->sighand protection,
	rcu_read_unlock() deadlocks

Ping ;)

Paul, should I resend or you do not think this can go via your rcu
tree?

On 09/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> 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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists