linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] qspinlock: Generic paravirt support

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: <20150403134334.GG32047@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 15:43:34 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	paolo.bonzini@...il.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	riel@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, scott.norton@...com, doug.hatch@...com,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] qspinlock: Generic paravirt support

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:48:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -158,20 +257,20 @@ static void pv_wait_head(struct qspinloc
>  void __pv_queue_spin_unlock(struct qspinlock *lock)
>  {
>  	struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
> +	struct pv_hash_bucket *hb;
>  
>  	if (xchg(&l->locked, 0) != _Q_SLOW_VAL)
>  		return;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * At this point the memory pointed at by lock can be freed/reused,
> +	 * however we can still use the pointer value to search in our hash
> +	 * table.
>  	 *
> +	 * Also, if we observe _Q_SLOW_VAL we _must_ now observe 'our' hash
> +	 * bucket. See pv_wait_head().
>  	 */
> +	hb = pv_hash_find(lock);
> +	pv_kick(hb->cpu);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(hb->lock, NULL); /* unhash */
>  }

So I _think_ I found a problem with this approach :/

If, as per the above, the lock does indeed get freed, it can get
re-allocated and stuck in the hash table (again) before we get the
lookup and unhash it.

I'll have to ponder that a bit more.
--
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/