linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.4 03/58] workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max

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:   Wed,  9 Aug 2017 12:41:15 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Alexei Potashnik <alexei@...estorage.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 03/58] workqueue: restore WQ_UNBOUND/max_active==1 to be ordered

4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

commit 5c0338c68706be53b3dc472e4308961c36e4ece1 upstream.

The combination of WQ_UNBOUND and max_active == 1 used to imply
ordered execution.  After NUMA affinity 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue:
implement NUMA affinity for unbound workqueues"), this is no longer
true due to per-node worker pools.

While the right way to create an ordered workqueue is
alloc_ordered_workqueue(), the documentation has been misleading for a
long time and people do use WQ_UNBOUND and max_active == 1 for ordered
workqueues which can lead to subtle bugs which are very difficult to
trigger.

It's unlikely that we'd see noticeable performance impact by enforcing
ordering on WQ_UNBOUND / max_active == 1 workqueues.  Let's
automatically set __WQ_ORDERED for those workqueues.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Reported-by: Alexei Potashnik <alexei@...estorage.com>
Fixes: 4c16bd327c74 ("workqueue: implement NUMA affinity for unbound workqueues")
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/workqueue.c |   10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -3834,6 +3834,16 @@ struct workqueue_struct *__alloc_workque
 	struct workqueue_struct *wq;
 	struct pool_workqueue *pwq;

+	/*
+	 * Unbound && max_active == 1 used to imply ordered, which is no
+	 * longer the case on NUMA machines due to per-node pools.  While
+	 * alloc_ordered_workqueue() is the right way to create an ordered
+	 * workqueue, keep the previous behavior to avoid subtle breakages
+	 * on NUMA.
+	 */
+	if ((flags & WQ_UNBOUND) && max_active == 1)
+		flags |= __WQ_ORDERED;
+
 	/* see the comment above the definition of WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT */
 	if ((flags & WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT) && wq_power_efficient)
 		flags |= WQ_UNBOUND;