| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1456956118-7082-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:01:58 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Subject: [PATCH] eventfd: document lockless access in eventfd_poll
Since commit e22553e2a25e ("eventfd: don't take the spinlock in
eventfd_poll", 2015-02-17), eventfd is reading ctx->count outside
ctx->wqh.lock.
However, things aren't as simple as the read barrier in eventfd_poll
would suggest. In fact, the read barrier, besides lacking a comment,
is not paired in any obvious manner with another read barrier, and it
is pointless because it is sitting between a write (deep in poll_wait)
and the read of ctx->count. The read barrier is acting just as a
compiler barrier, for which we can use READ_ONCE instead. This is
what the code change in this patch does.
The documentation change is just as important, however. The question,
posed by Andrea Arcangeli, is then why the thing is safe on architectures
where spin_unlock does not imply a store-load memory barrier.
The answer is that it's safe because writes of ctx->count use the same
lock as poll_wait, and hence an acquire barrier implicit in poll_wait
provides the necessary synchronization between eventfd_poll and callers
of wake_up_locked_poll. This is sort of mentioned in the commit message
with respect to eventfd_ctx_read ("eventfd_read is similar, it will
do a single decrement with the lock held") but it applies to all other
callers too. It's tricky enough that it should be documented in the code.
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
---
fs/eventfd.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/eventfd.c b/fs/eventfd.c
index 8d0c0df01854..dbbbe203f82b 100644
--- a/fs/eventfd.c
+++ b/fs/eventfd.c
@@ -121,8 +121,46 @@ static unsigned int eventfd_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
u64 count;
poll_wait(file, &ctx->wqh, wait);
- smp_rmb();
- count = ctx->count;
+
+ /*
+ * All writes to ctx->count occur within ctx->wqh.lock. This read
+ * can be done outside ctx->wqh.lock because we know that poll_wait
+ * takes that lock (through add_wait_queue) if our caller will sleep.
+ *
+ * The read _can_ therefore seep into add_wait_queue's critical
+ * section, but cannot move above it! add_wait_queue's spin_lock acts
+ * as an acquire barrier and ensures that the read be ordered properly
+ * against the writes. The following CAN happen and is safe:
+ *
+ * poll write
+ * ----------------- ------------
+ * lock ctx->wqh.lock (in poll_wait)
+ * count = ctx->count
+ * __add_wait_queue
+ * unlock ctx->wqh.lock
+ * lock ctx->qwh.lock
+ * ctx->count += n
+ * if (waitqueue_active)
+ * wake_up_locked_poll
+ * unlock ctx->qwh.lock
+ * eventfd_poll returns 0
+ *
+ * but the following, which would miss a wakeup, cannot happen:
+ *
+ * poll write
+ * ----------------- ------------
+ * count = ctx->count (INVALID!)
+ * lock ctx->qwh.lock
+ * ctx->count += n
+ * **waitqueue_active is false**
+ * **no wake_up_locked_poll!**
+ * unlock ctx->qwh.lock
+ * lock ctx->wqh.lock (in poll_wait)
+ * __add_wait_queue
+ * unlock ctx->wqh.lock
+ * eventfd_poll returns 0
+ */
+ count = READ_ONCE(ctx->count);
if (count > 0)
events |= POLLIN;
--
2.5.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists