linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might

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: <5476002B.30900@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:30:35 +0100
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] Reenable might_sleep() checks for might_fault() when
 atomic

Am 26.11.2014 um 17:19 schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:02:23PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> This is what happened on our side (very recent kernel):
>>>>
>>>> spin_lock(&lock)
>>>> copy_to_user(...)
>>>> spin_unlock(&lock)
>>>
>>> That's a deadlock even without copy_to_user - it's
>>> enough for the thread to be preempted and another one
>>> to try taking the lock.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1. s390 locks/unlocks a spin lock with a compare and swap, using the _cpu id_
>>>>    as "old value"
>>>> 2. we slept during copy_to_user()
>>>> 3. the thread got scheduled onto another cpu
>>>> 4. spin_unlock failed as the _cpu id_ didn't match (another cpu that locked
>>>>    the spinlock tried to unlocked it).
>>>> 5. lock remained locked -> deadlock
>>>>
>>>> Christian came up with the following explanation:
>>>> Without preemption, spin_lock() will not touch the preempt counter.
>>>> disable_pfault() will always touch it.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, with preemption disabled, copy_to_user() has no idea that it is
>>>> running in atomic context - and will therefore try to sleep.
>>>>
>>>> So copy_to_user() will on s390:
>>>> 1. run "as atomic" while spin_lock() with preemption enabled.
>>>> 2. run "as not atomic" while spin_lock() with preemption disabled.
>>>> 3.  run "as atomic" while pagefault_disabled() with preemption enabled or
>>>> disabled.
>>>> 4. run "as not atomic" when really not atomic.
>>
>> should have been more clear at that point: 
>> preemption enabled == kernel compiled with preemption support
>> preemption disabled == kernel compiled without preemption support
>>
>>>>
>>>> And exactly nr 2. is the thing that produced the deadlock in our scenario and
>>>> the reason why I want a might_sleep() :)
>>>
>>> IMHO it's not copy to user that causes the problem.
>>> It's the misuse of spinlocks with preemption on.
>>
>> As I said, preemption was off.
> 
> off -> disabled at compile time?
> 
> But the code is broken for people that do enable it.
[...]
> You should normally disable preemption if you take
> spinlocks.

Your are telling that any sequence of
spin_lock
...
spin_unlock

is broken with CONFIG_PREEMPT?
Michael, that is bullshit. spin_lock will take care of CONFIG_PREEMPT just fine. 

Only sequences like
spin_lock
...
schedule
...
spin_unlock
are broken.

But as I said. That is not the problem that we are discussing here.

Christian

--
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/