linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86, core)

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: <20160623194617.GS30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:46:17 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86,
 core)

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:34:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Didn't we talk about using SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU for task_struct before?
> > If that is possible, a reuse in per-cpu cache is equally possible.
> >
> > All we really want to guarantee is that the memory remains a
> > task_struct, it need not remain the same task, right?
> 
> No, we can't do SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU for the task_struct itself,
> because the RCU list traversal does expect that the thread and task
> lists are stable even if it walks into a "stale" struct task_struct.

Indeed.

OK, so the situation we talked about before is different, we wanted to
do SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU on top of the existing delayed_put_task_struct()
to get a double grace period.

The problem was for things like rq->curr, which isn't RCU managed as
such, we could still do:

	rcu_read_lock();
	task = rq->curr;

and rely on task being _a_ task_struct, even though it might not be the
self-same task we thought we had.

So yes, not an option and I was stitching together two half remembered
situations to create utter nonsense.