linux-kernel - Re: [BUG][tip/master] kernel panic while locking selftest at qspinlock

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: <55A07111.6030900@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:27:45 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG][tip/master] kernel panic while locking selftest at qspinlock_paravirt.h:137!

On 07/10/2015 08:32 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On 2015/07/10 23:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 03:57:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Peter Zijlstra<peterz@...radead.org>  wrote:
>>>> Do we want to make double unlock non-fatal unconditionally?
>>> No, just don't BUG() out, don't crash the system - generate a warning?
>> So that would be a yes..
>>
>> Something like so then? Won't this generate a splat on that locking self
>> test then? And upset people?
> Hmm, yes, this still noisy...
> Can't we avoid double-unlock completely? it seems that this warning can
> happen randomly, which means pv-spinlock randomly broken, doesn't it?

It shouldn't randomly happen. The message should be printed at the first 
instance of double-unlock. If that is not case, there may be some 
problem in the code.

Anyway, I have an alternative fix that should better capture the problem:

-------------------------------
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h 
b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
index 04ab181..92fc54f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
@@ -286,15 +286,24 @@ __visible void __pv_queued_spin_unlock(struct 
qspinlock *lock)
  {
      struct __qspinlock *l = (void *)lock;
      struct pv_node *node;
+    u8 lockval = cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, 0);

      /*
       * We must not unlock if SLOW, because in that case we must first
       * unhash. Otherwise it would be possible to have multiple @lock
       * entries, which would be BAD.
       */
-    if (likely(cmpxchg(&l->locked, _Q_LOCKED_VAL, 0) == _Q_LOCKED_VAL))
+    if (likely(lockval == _Q_LOCKED_VAL))
          return;

+    if (unlikely(lockval != _Q_SLOW_VAL)) {
+        printk(KERN_WARNING
+               "pvqspinlock: lock 0x%lx has corrupted value 0x%x!\n",
+               (unsigned long)lock, atomic_read(&lock->val));
+        WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
+        return;
+    }
+
      /*
       * Since the above failed to release, this must be the SLOW path.
       * Therefore start by looking up the blocked node and unhashing it.

--
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/