linux-kernel - Re: [tip:locking/core] locking/rwsem: Fix lock optimistic spinning when owner is not running

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFxMoq90OhVuZXRth51amgga7pD+7qDsiu4sSVcviwYZLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 09:04:23 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] locking/rwsem: Fix lock optimistic spinning
 when owner is not running

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> +             /*
>> +              * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_
>> +              * checking sem->owner still matches owner, if that fails,
>> +              * owner might point to free()d memory, if it still matches,
>> +              * the rcu_read_lock() ensures the memory stays valid.
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Yes, this is another case when we wrongly assume this.
>
> Peter, should I resend
>
>         [PATCH 3/3] introduce task_rcu_dereference()
>         http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141443631413914
>
> ? or should we add another call_rcu() in finish_task_switch() (like -rt does)
> to make this true?

I think we should just make 'task_struct_cachep' have SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU.

It has almost no overhead - since it only affects the final page
freeing, not the actual slab alloc/free paths - and it means that you
can do the "access for reading under rcu lock" without worrying.

Of course, with SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, a task may be re-allocated (to
*another* task) even under RCU, so the results from unlocked RCU read
accesses aren't "guaranteed" in that sense, but it's fine for
optimistic spinning where the code also ends up re-checking that the
task pointer itself matches. Getting the occasional race with "oops,
task went away" is fine, as long as we don't keep looping over a dead
task.

                           Linus
--
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/