linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 04/39] srcu: Check for tardy grace-period activity in cleanup_srcu

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: <20170418183453.GZ3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:34:53 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 04/39] srcu: Check for tardy grace-period
 activity in cleanup_srcu_struct()

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 05:34:30PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 05:33:32PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 04:44:51PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Users of SRCU are obliged to complete all grace-period activity before
> > > invoking cleanup_srcu_struct().  This means that all calls to either
> > > synchronize_srcu() or synchronize_srcu_expedited() must have returned,
> > > and all calls to call_srcu() must have returned, and the last call to
> > > call_srcu() must have been followed by a call to srcu_barrier().
> > > Furthermore, the caller must have done something to prevent any
> > > further calls to synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
> > > and call_srcu().
> > > 
> > > Therefore, if there has ever been an invocation of call_srcu() on
> > > the srcu_struct in question, the sequence of events must be as
> > > follows:
> > > 
> > > 1.  Prevent any further calls to call_srcu().
> > > 2.  Wait for any pre-existing call_srcu() invocations to return.
> > > 3.  Invoke srcu_barrier().
> > > 4.  It is now safe to invoke cleanup_srcu_struct().
> > > 
> > > On the other hand, if there has ever been a call to synchronize_srcu()
> > > or synchronize_srcu_expedited(), the sequence of events must be as
> > > follows:
> > > 
> > > 1.  Prevent any further calls to synchronize_srcu() or
> > >     synchronize_srcu_expedited().
> > > 2.  Wait for any pre-existing synchronize_srcu() or
> > >     synchronize_srcu_expedited() invocations to return.
> > > 3.  It is now safe to invoke cleanup_srcu_struct().
> > > 
> > > If there have been calls to all both types of functions (call_srcu()
> > > and either of synchronize_srcu() and synchronize_srcu_expedited()), then
> > > the caller must do the first three steps of the call_srcu() procedure
> > > above and the first two steps of the synchronize_s*() procedure above,
> > > and only then invoke cleanup_srcu_struct().
> > 
> > This commit message clearly explains the correct sequence for the
> > client, but not which aspects of this the change now enforces.  Some of
> > the steps above remain the responsibility of the caller, while the
> > callee now checks more of them.  Could you add something at the end
> > explaining the change and what it enforces?
> 
> More importantly, perhaps this explanation could find its way into the
> documentation of cleanup_srcu_struct?

Like this?

/**
 * cleanup_srcu_struct - deconstruct a sleep-RCU structure
 * @sp: structure to clean up.
 *
 * Must invoke this only after you are finished using a given srcu_struct
 * that was initialized via init_srcu_struct().  This code does some
 * probabalistic checking, spotting late uses of srcu_read_lock(),
 * synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(), and call_srcu().
 * If any such late uses are detected, the per-CPU memory associated with
 * the srcu_struct is simply leaked and WARN_ON() is invoked.  If the
 * caller frees the srcu_struct itself, a use-after-free crash will likely
 * ensue, but at least there will be a warning printed.
 */

I added the following paragraph to the commit log:

	Note that cleanup_srcu_struct() does some probabilistic checks
	for the caller failing to follow these procedures, in which
	case cleanup_srcu_struct() does WARN_ON() and avoids freeing
	the per-CPU structures associated with the specified srcu_struct
	structure.

And added your Reviewed-by, but please let me if more is needed.

							Thanx, Paul

> > > Reported-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > With the above change:
> > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > 
> > >  kernel/rcu/srcu.c | 5 +++++
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > > index ba41a5d04b49..6beeba7b0b67 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcu.c
> > > @@ -261,6 +261,11 @@ void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *sp)
> > >  {
> > >  	if (WARN_ON(srcu_readers_active(sp)))
> > >  		return; /* Leakage unless caller handles error. */
> > > +	if (WARN_ON(!rcu_all_batches_empty(sp)))
> > > +		return; /* Leakage unless caller handles error. */
> > > +	flush_delayed_work(&sp->work);
> > > +	if (WARN_ON(sp->running))
> > > +		return; /* Caller forgot to stop doing call_srcu()? */
> > >  	free_percpu(sp->per_cpu_ref);
> > >  	sp->per_cpu_ref = NULL;
> > >  }
> > > -- 
> > > 2.5.2
> > > 
>