linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/9] rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal

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: <20150302082726.GB5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 2 Mar 2015 09:27:26 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, oleg@...hat.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	andi@...stfloor.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/9] rbtree: Make lockless searches non-fatal

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 01:52:09PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >  2) there must not be (temporary) loops in the tree structure in the
> >     modifier's program order, this would cause a lookup which
> >     interrupts the modifier to get stuck indefinitely.
> 
> For (2), I don't think this is how the situation should be described.
> 
> Let's consider a scenario where an interrupt nests over the modification.
> First, the modification will switch the latch to the other version of the
> tree. Therefore, the interrupt will see a fully consistent tree, not the
> tree being modified. Therefore, a temporary loop in the tree should not
> be an issue for that peculiar situation.
> 
> However, if we have another thread traversing the tree while we
> concurrently switch the latch and modify one version of the tree,
> creating a temporary loop in the tree, this thread could possibly:
> 
> A) deadlock with the modification if there is a locking dependency
>    between tree modification, tree read, and another lock (transitive
>    dependency).
> B) have the modifier starved by the other thread, if that thread has
>    a higher scheduling priority (e.g. RT) than the modifier. The high
>    priority thread would then use all its CPU time to perform the
>    temporary loop.
> 
> So I agree that loops are unwanted there: it allows us to never have
> to care about situations A and B. However, the explanation about why
> should not involve, AFAIU, an interrupt handler nesting over the tree
> modification, because this is precisely one scenario that should not
> care about loops.
> 
> Thoughs ?

This is true for the (later) proposed latched RB-tree, the description
is however true in general. If you somehow did a lookup while doing the
modification and you have loops in program order, you're stuck.

So in the interest of robustness I think we want this property
nonetheless. And its 'free', I didn't have to change any code for this.

I shall however clarify this point in the latched RB-tree patch.
--
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/