linux-kernel - Re: call_rcu from trace

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: <55805AC5.8020507@plumgrid.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:20:05 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To:	Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: call_rcu from trace_preempt

On 6/16/15 5:38 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> static int free_thread(void *arg)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct htab_elem *l;
> +
> +	while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&elem_freelist_lock, flags);
> +		while (!list_empty(&elem_freelist)) {
> +			l = list_entry(elem_freelist.next,
> +				struct htab_elem, list);
> +			list_del(&l->list);
> +			kfree(l);

that's not right, since such thread defeats rcu protection of lookup.
We need either kfree_rcu/call_rcu or synchronize_rcu.
Obviously the former is preferred that's why I'm still digging into it.
Probably a thread that does kfree_rcu would be ok, but we shouldn't
be doing it unconditionally. For all networking programs and 99%
of tracing programs the existing code is fine and I don't want to
slow it down to tackle the corner case.
Extra spin_lock just to add it to the list is also quite costly.

--
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/