linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: abort_exclusive_wait() should pass TASK_NORMAL to wake

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: <20160901172658.GA14456@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2016 19:26:58 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: abort_exclusive_wait() should pass
        TASK_NORMAL to wake_up()

On 09/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So mixing INTERRUPTIBLE and UNINTERRUPTIBLE and then not using
> TASK_NORMAL for wakeups is a mis-feature/abuse of waitqueues IMO.

Heh, agreed. When I was doing this fix I suddenly realize that I do
not understand why do we have, say, wake_up_interruptible().

I mean, I can't imagine the "real" use-case when you actually want
to wake up only the INTERRUPTIBLE tasks and leave the UNINTERRUPTIBLE
sleeping. Exclusive or not.

It seems that wake_up_interruptible() is mostly used simply because
the caller knows that UNINTERRUPTIBLE waiters are not possible, this
is often the case.

> @@ -67,6 +70,16 @@ static void __wake_up_common(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
>  {
>  	wait_queue_t *curr, *next;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_WAITQUEUE
> +	if (q->state != -1) {
> +		/*
> +		 * WARN if we have INTERRUPTIBLE and UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> +		 * waiters and do not use TASK_NORMAL to wake.
> +		 */
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(q->state != (mode & TASK_NORMAL));
> +	}
> +#endif

Yes, perhaps...

Actually, I think that TASK_NORMAL should be used even if wq mixes
UNINTERRUPTIBLE and KILLABLE waiters. The fact that TASK_KILLABLE
includes TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE is just "implementation detail" even
if I do not think this will be ever changed.

Oleg.