linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the rcu tree

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:   Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:41:50 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the rcu tree

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:14:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:43:52PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Looks like I need to rebase my patch on top of a9668cd6ee28, and
> > than put an smp_mb__after_spinlock() between the lock and the unlock.
> > 
> > Peter, any objections to that approach?  Other suggestions?
> 
> Hurm.. I'll have to try and understand that comment there again it
> seems.

OK, so per commit b5740f4b2cb3 ("sched: Fix ancient race in do_exit()")
the race is with try_to_wake_up():

down_read()
	p->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;

						try_to_wake_up(p)
							spin_lock(p->pi_lock);
							/* sees TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE */
							ttwu_remote()
	/* check stuff, no need to schedule() */
	p->state = TASK_RUNNING


p->state = TASK_DEAD

								p->state = TASK_RUNNING /* whoops! */
							spin_unlock(p->pi_lock);

__schedule(false);
BUG();




So given that, I think that:

  spin_lock(&current->pi_lock);
  spin_unlock(&current->pi_lock);

  current->state = TASK_DEAD;

is sufficient. I don't see a need for an additional smp_mb here.

Either the concurrent ttwu is finished and we must observe its RUNNING
store, or it will observe our RUNNING store.