linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix a race between rwsem and the scheduler

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:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:34:16 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <nicholas.piggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix a race between rwsem and the scheduler

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:57:47PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> > > But context switch should imply mb() we can rely on?
> >
> > Not sure it should, on x86 switch_mm does a CR3 write and that is
> > serializing, but switch_to() doesn't need to do anything iirc.
> 
> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt says
> 
> 	schedule() and similar imply full memory barriers.
> 
> and I (wrongly?) interpreted this as if this is also true for 2
> different threadds.

I'm not actually sure it does. There is the comment from 8643cda549ca4
which explain the program order guarantees.

But I'm not sure who or what would simply a full smp_mb() when you call
schedule() -- I mean, its true on x86, but that's 'trivial'.

> I mean, I thought that the LOAD/STORE's done by some task can't
> be re-ordered with LOAD/STORE's done by another task which was
> running on the same CPU. Wrong?

If so, I'm not sure how :/

So smp_mb__before_spinlock() stops stores from @prev, and the ACQUIRE
from spin_lock(&rq->lock) stops both loads/stores from @next, but afaict
nothing stops the loads from @prev seeing stores from @next.

Also not sure this matters though, if they're threads in the same
process its a data race already and nobody cares. If they're not threads
in the same process, they're separated by address space and can't 'see'
each other anyway.