linux-kernel - Re: semantics of reader/writer semaphores in rt patch

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <544E5E77.1000000@windriver.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:02:15 -0600
From:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: semantics of reader/writer semaphores in rt patch

On 10/25/2014 04:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> I recently noticed that when CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL is enabled we the
>> semantics change.  From "include/linux/rwsem_rt.h":
>>
>>   * Note that the semantics are different from the usual
>>   * Linux rw-sems, in PREEMPT_RT mode we do not allow
>>   * multiple readers to hold the lock at once, we only allow
>>   * a read-lock owner to read-lock recursively. This is
>>   * better for latency, makes the implementation inherently
>>   * fair and makes it simpler as well.
>>
>> How is this valid?  It seems to me that there are any number of code paths
>> that could depend on having multiple threads of execution be able to hold the
>> reader lock simultaneously.  Something as simple as:
>>
>> thread A:
>> take rw_semaphore X for reading
>> take lock Y, modify data, release lock Y
>> wake up thread B
>> wait on conditional protected by lock Y
>> free rw_semaphore X
>>
>> thread B:
>> take rw_semaphore X for reading
>> wait on conditional protected by lock Y
>> send message to wake up thread A
>> free rw_semaphore X
>
> I don't see why B should wake A without changing the conditional. A
> won't make progress by being woken by B as the conditional does not
> magically change just because B wakes A.
>
> So what you wanted to say is:
>
>    thread B:
>    take rw_semaphore X for reading
>    wait on conditional protected by lock Y
> + take lock Y, modify data, release lock Y
>    send message to wake up thread A
>    free rw_semaphore X
>
> Otherwise your example does not make any sense at all. And that has
> some serious non RT related implications.


Yes, your reformulated version is what I meant to say.  Sorry for any 
confusion.


>> Does the RT kernel just disallow this sort of algorithm?
>
> Yes. For a good reason. Let's add thread C
>
> A    	   	B		C
> down_read(X)
> 				down_write(X)
> lock(Y)
> modify data
> unlock(Y)
> wake(B)
> 		down_read(X)
>
> Due to the mainline rwsem fairness semantics:
>
> A holds X, C is blocked on A and B is blocked on A.
>
> Deadlock, without RT and the single reader restriction being involved.


Crap, I had forgotten about the fairness semantics stuff.  That makes 
perfect sense.

Thanks for the explanation.

Chris

--
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/