linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/23] userfaultfd: wake pending userfaults

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]

Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:38:24 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	qemu-devel@...gnu.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Sanidhya Kashyap <sanidhya.gatech@...il.com>,
	zhang.zhanghailiang@...wei.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andreslc@...gle.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
	"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"Huangpeng (Peter)" <peter.huangpeng@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/23] userfaultfd: wake pending userfaults

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 03:20:15PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> If schedule spontaneously wakes up a task in TASK_KILLABLE state that
> would be a bug in the scheduler in my view. Luckily there doesn't seem
> to be such a bug, or at least we never experienced it.

Well, there will be a wakeup, just not the one you were hoping for.

We have code that does:

	@cond = true;
	get_task_struct(p);
	queue(p)

				/* random wait somewhere */
				for (;;) {
					prepare_to_wait();
					if (@cond)
					  break;

				...

				handle_userfault()
				  ...
				  schedule();
	...

	dequeue(p)
	wake_up_process(p) ---> wakeup without userfault wakeup


These races are (extremely) rare, but they do exist. Therefore one must
never assume schedule() will not spuriously wake because of these
things.

Also, see:

lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFwHkOo+YGWKYROmce1-H_uG3KfEUmCkJUerTj=ojY2H6Q@...l.gmail.com

--
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/