linux-kernel - [GIT pull] locking fix for 4.7

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:18:38 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: [GIT pull] locking fix for 4.7

Linus,

please pull the latest locking-urgent-for-linus git tree from:

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking-urgent-for-linus

A single fix to address a race in the static key logic.

Thanks,

	tglx

------------------>
Paolo Bonzini (1):
      locking/static_key: Fix concurrent static_key_slow_inc()


 include/linux/jump_label.h | 16 +++++++++++++---
 kernel/jump_label.c        | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/jump_label.h b/include/linux/jump_label.h
index 0536524bb9eb..68904469fba1 100644
--- a/include/linux/jump_label.h
+++ b/include/linux/jump_label.h
@@ -117,13 +117,18 @@ struct module;
 
 #include <linux/atomic.h>
 
+#ifdef HAVE_JUMP_LABEL
+
 static inline int static_key_count(struct static_key *key)
 {
-	return atomic_read(&key->enabled);
+	/*
+	 * -1 means the first static_key_slow_inc() is in progress.
+	 *  static_key_enabled() must return true, so return 1 here.
+	 */
+	int n = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
+	return n >= 0 ? n : 1;
 }
 
-#ifdef HAVE_JUMP_LABEL
-
 #define JUMP_TYPE_FALSE	0UL
 #define JUMP_TYPE_TRUE	1UL
 #define JUMP_TYPE_MASK	1UL
@@ -162,6 +167,11 @@ extern void jump_label_apply_nops(struct module *mod);
 
 #else  /* !HAVE_JUMP_LABEL */
 
+static inline int static_key_count(struct static_key *key)
+{
+	return atomic_read(&key->enabled);
+}
+
 static __always_inline void jump_label_init(void)
 {
 	static_key_initialized = true;
diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
index 05254eeb4b4e..4b353e0be121 100644
--- a/kernel/jump_label.c
+++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
@@ -58,13 +58,36 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct static_key *key);
 
 void static_key_slow_inc(struct static_key *key)
 {
+	int v, v1;
+
 	STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE();
-	if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&key->enabled))
-		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * Careful if we get concurrent static_key_slow_inc() calls;
+	 * later calls must wait for the first one to _finish_ the
+	 * jump_label_update() process.  At the same time, however,
+	 * the jump_label_update() call below wants to see
+	 * static_key_enabled(&key) for jumps to be updated properly.
+	 *
+	 * So give a special meaning to negative key->enabled: it sends
+	 * static_key_slow_inc() down the slow path, and it is non-zero
+	 * so it counts as "enabled" in jump_label_update().  Note that
+	 * atomic_inc_unless_negative() checks >= 0, so roll our own.
+	 */
+	for (v = atomic_read(&key->enabled); v > 0; v = v1) {
+		v1 = atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, v, v + 1);
+		if (likely(v1 == v))
+			return;
+	}
 
 	jump_label_lock();
-	if (atomic_inc_return(&key->enabled) == 1)
+	if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0) {
+		atomic_set(&key->enabled, -1);
 		jump_label_update(key);
+		atomic_set(&key->enabled, 1);
+	} else {
+		atomic_inc(&key->enabled);
+	}
 	jump_label_unlock();
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_slow_inc);
@@ -72,6 +95,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_slow_inc);
 static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct static_key *key,
 		unsigned long rate_limit, struct delayed_work *work)
 {
+	/*
+	 * The negative count check is valid even when a negative
+	 * key->enabled is in use by static_key_slow_inc(); a
+	 * __static_key_slow_dec() before the first static_key_slow_inc()
+	 * returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc()
+	 * instances block while the update is in progress.
+	 */
 	if (!atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(&key->enabled, &jump_label_mutex)) {
 		WARN(atomic_read(&key->enabled) < 0,
 		     "jump label: negative count!\n");