linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ipc/mqueue: lockless pipelined wakeups

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: <1430526956.1940.8.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date:	Fri, 01 May 2015 17:35:56 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	bigeasy@...utronix.de, clm@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	manfred@...orfullife.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ipc/mqueue: lockless pipelined wakeups

On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 17:52 -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> In general, Acked-by, but you're making me fix all your comments. :-)
> 
> This is a nice use of the wake queue, since the code was already handling
> the same problem in a similar way with STATE_PENDING.
> 
> >  * The receiver accepts the message and returns without grabbing the queue
> >+ * spinlock. The used algorithm is different from sysv semaphores (ipc/sem.c):
> 
> Is that last sentence even wanted?

Yeah, we can probably remove it now.

> >+ *
> >+ * - Set pointer to message.
> >+ * - Queue the receiver task's for later wakeup (without the info->lock).
> 
> It's "task" singular, and the apostrophe would be wrong if it were plural.
> 
> >+ * - Update its state to STATE_READY. Now the receiver can continue.
> >+ * - Wake up the process after the lock is dropped. Should the process wake up
> >+ *   before this wakeup (due to a timeout or a signal) it will either see
> >+ *   STATE_READY and continue or acquire the lock to check the sate again.
> 
> "check the sTate again".
> 
> >+	wake_q_add(wake_q, receiver->task);
> >+	/*
> >+	 * Rely on the implicit cmpxchg barrier from wake_q_add such
> >+	 * that we can ensure that updating receiver->state is the last
> >+	 * write operation: As once set, the receiver can continue,
> >+	 * and if we don't have the reference count from the wake_q,
> >+	 * yet, at that point we can later have a use-after-free
> >+	 * condition and bogus wakeup.
> >+	 */
> > 	receiver->state = STATE_READY;
> 
> How about:
> 	/*
> 	 * There must be a write barrier here; setting STATE_READY
> 	 * lets the receiver proceed without further synchronization.
> 	 * The cmpxchg inside wake_q_add serves as the barrier here.
> 	 */
> 
> The need for a wake queue to take a reference to avoid use-after-free
> is generic to wake queues, and handled in generic code; I don't see why
> it needs a comment here.

You are not wrong, but I'd rather leave the comment as is, as it will
vary from user to user. The comments in the sched wake_q bits are
already pretty clear, and if users cannot see the need for holding
reference and the task disappearing on their own they have no business
using wake_q. Furthermore, I think my comment serves better in mqueues
as the need for it isn't immediately obvious.

 
> >@@ -1084,6 +1094,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mq_timedreceive, mqd_t, mqdes, char __user *, u_msg_ptr,
> > 	ktime_t expires, *timeout = NULL;
> > 	struct timespec ts;
> > 	struct posix_msg_tree_node *new_leaf = NULL;
> >+	WAKE_Q(wake_q);
> > 
> > 	if (u_abs_timeout) {
> > 		int res = prepare_timeout(u_abs_timeout, &expires, &ts);
> >@@ -1155,8 +1166,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(mq_timedreceive, mqd_t, mqdes, char __user *, u_msg_ptr,
> > 				CURRENT_TIME;
> > 
> > 		/* There is now free space in queue. */
> >-		pipelined_receive(info);
> >+		pipelined_receive(&wake_q, info);
> > 		spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> >+		wake_up_q(&wake_q);
> > 		ret = 0;
> > 	}
> > 	if (ret == 0) {
> 
> Since WAKE_Q actually involves some initialization, would it make sense to
> move its declaration to inside the condition that needs it?
> 
> (I'm also a fan of declaring variables in the smallest scope possible,
> just on general principles.)

Agreed.

Thanks,
Davidlohr


--
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/