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: <20170518123054.cp7fqnclvjjgbtyd@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2017 14:30:54 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: commit cfafcd117 "futex: Rework futex_lock_pi() to use
 rt_mutex_*_proxy_lock()" causes glibc nptl/tst-robustpi8 failure

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:34:34AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 05/18/2017 10:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > But it does that after building the tst-robustpi8 thing, so I seem to
> > > have all I need here.
> > 
> > Great, have fun figuring out what's going on. :-/
> 
> 
> 
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2165  [018] ....   290.235869: sched_process_fork: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2165 child_comm=ld-linux-x86-64 child_pid=2166
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2166  [019] ....   290.436398: handle_futex_death: 00007f066634e870: 876 -> 40000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2166  [019] ....   290.436399: handle_futex_death: 00007f066634e0c8: 876 -> 40000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2166  [019] ....   290.436400: handle_futex_death: 00007f066634ee38: 80000876 -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2166  [019] ....   290.436401: sched_process_exit: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2166 prio=120
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2164  [019] ...1   290.436546: attach_to_pi_owner: 2: 00007f066634e078 = 80000876
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2183  [026] ....   827.987914: sched_process_fork: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2183 child_comm=ld-linux-x86-64 child_pid=2187
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188218: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361690: 88b -> 40000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188219: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361898: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188220: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd3615c8: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188220: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd3612d0: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188220: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361af0: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188221: handle_futex_death: 00007f76dd361168: 8000088b -> c0000000
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2187  [029] ....   828.188222: sched_process_exit: comm=ld-linux-x86-64 pid=2187 prio=120
>  ld-linux-x86-64-2182  [019] ...1   828.188373: attach_to_pi_owner: 2: 00007f76dd361000 = 8000088b
> 
> 
> 
> In both cases we fail in FUTEX_LOCK_PI trying to acquire a futex owned
> by a dead task, resulting in the -ESRCH.
> 
> Now, pthread_mutex_lock() isn't expecting -ESRCH for robust futexes,
> because for robust we'd expect handle_futex_death() to clear out the
> futex value and set OWNER_DIED, as can be seen above.
> 
> The problem is however that the futex address we fail on, doesn't appear
> to have been fixed up, so its either not on the robust list, or the
> robust list got broken.

The robust list walk finishes without issue. So no premature
terminations. The address really isn't on it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ