linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5734DC9C.9060105@hpe.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 May 2016 15:42:20 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write_killable

On 05/12/2016 08:19 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 12-05-16 14:12:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:03:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> I still cannot say I would understand why the pending
>>> RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS matters but I would probably need to look at the code
>>> again with a clean head, __rwsem_wake is quite tricky...
>> Ah, you're asking why an unconditional __rwsem_wake(ANY) isn't enough?
>>
>> Because; if at that point there's nobody waiting, we're left with an
>> empty list and WAITER_BIAS set. This in turn will make all fast paths
>> fail.
>>
>> Look at rwsem_down_read_failed() for instance; if we enter that we'll
>> unconditionally queue ourself, with nobody left to come wake us.
> This is still not clear to me because rwsem_down_read_failed will call
> __rwsem_do_wake if the count is RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS so we shouldn't go to
> sleep and get the lock. So you are right that we would force everybody
> to the slow path which is not great but shouldn't cause incorrect
> behavior. I guess I must be missing something obvious here...

Because of writer lock stealing, having a count of RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS 
doesn't mean the reader can surely get the lock even if it is the first 
one in the queue. Calling __rwsem_do_wake() will take care of all the 
locking and queue checking work. Yes, I think it is a bit odd for the 
possibility that a task may wake up itself. Maybe we can add code like:

--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -202,7 +202,8 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum 
rwsem_wake_type wake_type)
           */
          smp_mb();
          waiter->task = NULL;
-        wake_up_process(tsk);
+        if (tsk != current)
+            wake_up_process(tsk);
          put_task_struct(tsk);
      } while (--loop);

Cheers,
Longman