Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:16:35 +0200
From:	Felix Hübner <felixh@...ormatik.uni-bremen.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	manfred@...orfullife.com, bitbucket@...ine.de, riel@...hat.com,
	dbueso@...e.de
Subject: PROBLEM: Concurrency issue in sem_lock

Hi all,

I have just reported a concurrency issue in the implementation of
sem_lock, see https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105651

Please set me to CC for answers/comments.


[1.] One line summary of the problem:

Concurrency issue in sem_lock

[2.] Full description of the problem/report:

In line 376 (file ipc/sem.c) sem_wait_array is called with pre condition
sma->complex_count!=0 resulting in an immediate return.

The following scenario is possible, allowing P0 and P1 to be in the
critical section (section between sem_lock und sem_unlock) at the same time:

P0 is a process performing up with semtimedop on single semaphore 1.
P1 is a process performing up with semtimedop on single semaphore 1.
P2 is a process performing down with semtimedop on semaphores 1 and 2.

start condition:

sma->complex_count=0

All line references apply to the file ipc/sem.c.

# P0 runs sem_lock up to line 332: if(sma->complex_count==0) evaluates
to true

static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
			      int nsops)
{
	struct sem *sem;

	if (nsops != 1) {
		...
	}
	sem = sma->sem_base + sops->sem_num;

	if (sma->complex_count == 0) {

# P1 runs sem_lock up to line 329.

static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
		      int nsops)
{
	struct sem *sem;

	if (nsops != 1) {
		...
	}

	sem = sma->sem_base + sops->sem_num;

# P2 runs sem_lock to (including) line 310.

static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
			      int nsops)
{
	struct sem *sem;

	if (nsops != 1) {
		ipc_lock_object(&sma->sem_perm);

		sem_wait_array(sma);

# P0 does spin_lock(&sem->lock); in line 336.

		spin_lock(&sem->lock);

# P2 performs rest of semtimedop, increments complex_count and ends up
in line 1961 and starts to sleep.

		return -1;
	}

  ##semtimedop:
	locknum = sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);

	...

	error = perform_atomic_semop(sma, &queue);
	if (error == 0) {
		...
	}
	if (error <= 0)
		...

	if (nsops == 1) {
		...
	} else {
		if (!sma->complex_count)
			merge_queues(sma);

		if (alter)
			list_add_tail(&queue.list, &sma->pending_alter);
		else
			list_add_tail(&queue.list, &sma->pending_const);

		sma->complex_count++;
	}

	queue.status = -EINTR;
	queue.sleeper = current;

sleep_again:
	__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
	sem_unlock(sma, locknum);
	rcu_read_unlock();

	if (timeout)
		jiffies_left = schedule_timeout(jiffies_left);
	else
		schedule();

# P1 evaluates if(sem->complex_count==0) in line 331 and ends up in line
361.

	if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
		...
	}

# P0 evaluates if(!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) in line 339 and
ends up after line 346.

	if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {				
		ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked();


# P1 performs ipc_lock_object(&sma->sem_perm); line 362; it then
evaluates if(sma->complex_count==0) and executes the else statement,
calls sem_wait_array in line 376, which returns erroneously.

	ipc_lock_object(&sma->sem_perm);

	if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
		...
	} else {
		sem_wait_array(sma);
			
			static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array*sma)
			{
				int i;
				struct sem *sem;

				if (sma->complex_count)  {
					return;
				}				

		return -1;
	}

# P1 runs the rest of semtimedop and wakes P2 up in do_smart_update
(line 1911), update_queue and unlink_queue respectively. This reduces
complex_count.

	locknum = sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
	...
	...
	error = perform_atomic_semop(sma, &queue);
	if (error == 0) {
		if (alter)
			do_smart_update(sma, sops, nsops, 1, &tasks);

# P0 now evaluates if(sma->complex_count==0) in line 353 and is able to
enter the critical section, while P1 is still in do_smart_update().

		if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
			/* fast path successful! */
			return sops->sem_num;
		}	


Thanks to Manfred Spraul for his comments on the problem description.


[3.] Keywords (i.e., modules, networking, kernel):
IPC, sem_lock
[4.] Kernel information
[4.1.] Kernel version (from /proc/version):
4.3.0-rc4

[5.] Most recent kernel version which did not have the bug:
According to Manfred, the attached patch, causing the bug, was first
added in version 3.12 and then backported.

[X.] Patch causing the bug:


>From f5346dce3b37c00f9b6e22bee35d22783d11de7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 21:45:57 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ipc/sem.c: optimize sem_lock().

Operations that need access to the whole array must guarantee that there are
no simple operations ongoing. Right now this is achieved by
spin_unlock_wait(sem->lock) on all semaphores.

If complex_count is nonzero, then this spin_unlock_wait() is not necessary,
because it was already performed in the past by the thread that increased
complex_count and even though sem_perm.lock was dropped inbetween, no simple
operation could have started, because simple operations cannot start when
complex_count is non-zero.

Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
---
 ipc/sem.c | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index 4a92c04..e20658d 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -257,12 +257,20 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_head *head)
  * Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
  * New simple ops cannot start, because simple ops first check
  * that sem_perm.lock is free.
+ * that a) sem_perm.lock is free and b) complex_count is 0.
  */
 static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array *sma)
 {
 	int i;
 	struct sem *sem;

+	if (sma->complex_count)  {
+		/* The thread that increased sma->complex_count waited on
+		 * all sem->lock locks. Thus we don't need to wait again.
+		 */
+		return;
+	}
+
 	for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
 		sem = sma->sem_base + i;
 		spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock);
-- 
1.8.3.1




Best regards,

Felix Hübner


-- 
Felix Hübner

Arbeitsgruppe Betriebssysteme, Verteilte Systeme
(Research Group Operating Systems, Distributed Systems)
FB3 Mathematik und Informatik
(Department of Mathematics and Computer Science)

Universität Bremen

ROOM: MZH 8200
MAIL: felixh@...ormatik.uni-bremen.de
TEL : +49 (0)421 / 218 63966
WEB : http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/agbs
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists