linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] context_tracking: remove local_irq_save from __acct_update

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

Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:10:31 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Lutomirsky <amluto@...capital.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] context_tracking: remove local_irq_save from __acct_update_integrals

On 04/24/2015 05:11 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:57:13PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/tsacct.c b/kernel/tsacct.c
>> index 975cb49e32bf..0b967f116a6b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/tsacct.c
>> +++ b/kernel/tsacct.c
>> @@ -126,23 +126,29 @@ static void __acct_update_integrals(struct task_struct *tsk,
>>  	if (likely(tsk->mm)) {
>>  		cputime_t time, dtime;
>>  		struct timeval value;
>> -		unsigned long flags;
>>  		u64 delta;
>>
>> -		local_irq_save(flags);
>>  		time = stime + utime;
>>  		dtime = time - tsk->acct_timexpd;
>> +		/*
>> +		 * This code is called both from irq context and from
>> +		 * task context. There is a race where irq context advances
>> +		 * tsk->acct_timexpd to a value larger than time, creating
>> +		 * a negative value. In that case, the irq has already
>> +		 * updated the statistics.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (unlikely((signed long)dtime <= 0))
>> +			return;
> 
> FWIW, I think you either need a barrier() before the if-statement or use
> READ_ONCE() when reading tsk->acct_timexpd above.
> 
> Otherwise the compiler could (in theory at least) generate code which
> would translate to 
> 		if (unlikely(time <= tsk->acct_timexpd))
> in order to achieve the same result, no?
> 
> Besides that cputime_t might be 64 bit in size, therefore you don't have
> much of a guarentee that reading tsk->acct_timexpd happens atomically on
> 32 bit architectures, so you _may_ end up with garbage, no?

You are right on both counts. Thank you for pointing out what
should have been obvious...

Let me post a new patch :)

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
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/