linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.10 02/11] ipc/sem.c: update/correct memory barriers

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: <20150911224528.607805504@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:49:01 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3.10 02/11] ipc/sem.c: update/correct memory barriers

3.10-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>

commit 3ed1f8a99d70ea1cd1508910eb107d0edcae5009 upstream.

sem_lock() did not properly pair memory barriers:

!spin_is_locked() and spin_unlock_wait() are both only control barriers.
The code needs an acquire barrier, otherwise the cpu might perform read
operations before the lock test.

As no primitive exists inside <include/spinlock.h> and since it seems
noone wants another primitive, the code creates a local primitive within
ipc/sem.c.

With regards to -stable:

The change of sem_wait_array() is a bugfix, the change to sem_lock() is a
nop (just a preprocessor redefinition to improve the readability).  The
bugfix is necessary for all kernels that use sem_wait_array() (i.e.:
starting from 3.10).

Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 ipc/sem.c |   20 ++++++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -253,6 +253,16 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_head
 }

 /*
+ * spin_unlock_wait() and !spin_is_locked() are not memory barriers, they
+ * are only control barriers.
+ * The code must pair with spin_unlock(&sem->lock) or
+ * spin_unlock(&sem_perm.lock), thus just the control barrier is insufficient.
+ *
+ * smp_rmb() is sufficient, as writes cannot pass the control barrier.
+ */
+#define ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked()	smp_rmb()
+
+/*
  * Wait until all currently ongoing simple ops have completed.
  * Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
  * New simple ops cannot start, because simple ops first check
@@ -275,6 +285,7 @@ static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_ar
 		sem = sma->sem_base + i;
 		spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock);
 	}
+	ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked();
 }

 /*
@@ -326,8 +337,13 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_ar

 		/* Then check that the global lock is free */
 		if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {
-			/* spin_is_locked() is not a memory barrier */
-			smp_mb();
+			/*
+			 * We need a memory barrier with acquire semantics,
+			 * otherwise we can race with another thread that does:
+			 *	complex_count++;
+			 *	spin_unlock(sem_perm.lock);
+			 */
+			ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked();

 			/* Now repeat the test of complex_count:
 			 * It can't change anymore until we drop sem->lock.

--
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/