linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Rework writer block/wake to not use wait-queues

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: <20161205083605.GQ3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:36:05 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, john.stultz@...aro.org,
        dimitrysh@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Rework writer block/wake to
 not use wait-queues

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 06:18:39PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> @@ -102,8 +103,13 @@ void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> 	 */
> 	__this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
> 
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	writer = rcu_dereference(sem->writer);

Don't think this is correct, I think Oleg suggested using
task_rcu_dereference(), which is a giant pile of magic.

The problem is that task_struct isn't RCU protected as such.

> +
> 	/* Prod writer to recheck readers_active */
> -	wake_up(&sem->writer);
> +	if (writer)
> +		wake_up_process(writer);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__percpu_up_read);
> 
> @@ -159,8 +165,18 @@ void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> 	 * will wait for them.
> 	 */
> 
> -	/* Wait for all now active readers to complete. */
> -	wait_event(sem->writer, readers_active_check(sem));
> +	WRITE_ONCE(sem->writer, current);

So this one matches rcu_dereference(), which is weird, because you now
have unmatched barriers.

> +	for (;;) {
> +		set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> +
> +		if (readers_active_check(sem))
> +			break;
> +
> +		schedule();
> +	}
> +
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(sem->writer, NULL);

And this one does not, and the value being NULL this actually reverts to
WRITE_ONCE().

> +	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_down_write);