linux-kernel - Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks

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: <20160520162040.GD7086@linux-uzut.site>
Date:	Fri, 20 May 2016 09:20:40 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	manfred@...orfullife.com, Waiman.Long@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ggherdovich@...e.com,
	mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: sem_lock() vs qspinlocks

On Fri, 20 May 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>The problem is that the clear_pending_set_locked() is an unordered
>store, therefore this store can be delayed until no later than
>spin_unlock() (which orders against it due to the address dependency).
>
>This opens numerous races; for example:
>
>	ipc_lock_object(&sma->sem_perm);
>	sem_wait_array(sma);
>
>				false   ->	spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)
>
>is entirely possible, because sem_wait_array() consists of pure reads,
>so the store can pass all that, even on x86.

I had pondered at the unordered stores in clear_pending_set_locked() for arm,
for example, but I _certainly_ missed this for x86 inside the ACQUIRE region.

Thanks,
Davidlohr