linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] futex: lower the lock contention on the HB lock during wake up

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509161201210.3951@nanos>
Date:	Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:22:09 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Zhu Jefferry <Jefferry.Zhu@...escale.com>
cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"bigeasy@...utronix.de" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] futex: lower the lock contention on the HB lock during
 wake up

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Zhu Jefferry wrote:
> The application is a multi-thread program, to use the pairs of mutex_lock and 
> mutex_unlock to protect the shared data structure. The type of this mutex
> is PTHREAD_MUTEX_PI_RECURSIVE_NP. After running long time, to say several days,
> the mutex_lock data structure in user space looks like corrupt.
> 
>    thread 0 can do mutex_lock/unlock     
>    __lock = this thread | FUTEX_WAITERS
>    __owner = 0, should be this thread

The kernel does not know about __owner.

>    __counter keep increasing, although there is no recursive mutex_lock call.
>
>    thread 1 will be stuck 
> 
> The primary debugging shows the content of __lock is wrong in first. After a call of
> Mutex_unlock, the value of __lock should not be this thread self. But we observed
> The value of __lock is still self after unlock. So, other threads will be stuck,

How did you observe that?

> This thread could lock due to recursive type and __counter keep increasing, 
> although mutex_unlock return fails, due to the wrong value of __owner, 
> but the application did not check the return value. So the thread 0 looks
> like fine. But thread 1 will be stuck forever.

Oh well. So thread 0 looks all fine, despite not checking return
values.

Thanks,

	tglx

--
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/