linux-kernel - Re: initialize a mutex into locked state?

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:	Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:40:14 -0400
From:	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Subject: Re: initialize a mutex into locked state?


On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:24:32AM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 17, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:14:10AM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 17, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:23:35PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To my surprise I found out that it's not possible to initialise a mutex into
>>>>>> a locked state.
>>>>>> I discussed it with Arjan and apparently there's no fundamental reason
>>>>>> not to allow this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is. A mutex _must_ have an owner. If you can initialize it in
>>>>> locked state, you could do so statically, ie. outside of the context of
>>>>> a task.
>>>> 
>>>> What's wrong with disallowing only static initializers, but allowing dynamic ones?
>>>> Then there is a clear owner.
>>> 
>>> At which point, what wrong with the simple:
>>> 
>>> 	mutex_init(&m);
>>> 	mutex_lock(&m);
>>> 
>>> Sequence? Its obvious, has clear semantics and doesn't extend the API.
>> 
>> The problem is:
>> 
>> spin_lock(somelock);
>> structure = some_internal_list_lookup(list);
>> if (structure)
>> 	goto out;
>> 
>> init_new_structure(new_structure);
>> mutex_init(&new_structure->s_mutex);
>> mutex_lock(&new_structure->s_mutex);  // XXX CANNOT DO THIS UNDER SPINLOCK!
> 
> 	mutex_trylock(&new_structure->s_mutex);
> 
> should work, since you know it cannot be acquired yet by anybody else,
> since you've not published it yet.

This does work, but suddenly does not look so obvious anymore, does it?
I got some feedback that doing this is not really preferred.

Also once __must_check is added to mutex_try_lock() (surprised it's not yet),
we'll need to also have the useless "but what if it did fail to lock" path?

> And a trylock does not sleep, so is perfectly fine under a spinlock.
> 
>> 
>> list_add(list, new_structure->s_list);
>> structure = new_structure;
>> out:
>> spin_unlock(somelock);
>> return structure;
>>