linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched/wait: Introduce lock breaker in wake_up_page

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:   Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:29:59 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched/wait: Introduce lock breaker in
 wake_up_page_bit

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:16:48 +1000
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:12:19 -0700
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 

> >     diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> >     index baba290c276b..0b41c8cbeabc 100644
> >     --- a/mm/filemap.c
> >     +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> >     @@ -986,10 +986,6 @@ static inline int
> > wait_on_page_bit_common(wait_queue_head_t *q,
> > 
> >                 if (likely(test_bit(bit_nr, &page->flags))) {
> >                         io_schedule();
> >     -                   if (unlikely(signal_pending_state(state, current))) {
> >     -                           ret = -EINTR;
> >     -                           break;
> >     -                   }
> >                 }
> > 
> >                 if (lock) {
> >     @@ -999,6 +995,11 @@ static inline int
> > wait_on_page_bit_common(wait_queue_head_t *q,
> >                         if (!test_bit(bit_nr, &page->flags))
> >                                 break;
> >                 }
> >     +
> >     +           if (unlikely(signal_pending_state(state, current))) {
> >     +                   ret = -EINTR;
> >     +                   break;
> >     +           }
> >         }
> > 
> >         finish_wait(q, wait);
> > 
> > but maybe I'm missing something.
> > 
> > Nick, comments?  
> 
> No I don't think you're missing something. We surely could lose our only
> wakeup in this window. So an exclusive waiter has to always make sure
> they propagate the wakeup (regardless of what they do with the contended
> resources itself).
> 
> Seems like your fix should solve it. By the look of how wait_on_bit_lock
> is structured, the author probably did think about this case a little
> better than I did :\

BTW. since you are looking at this stuff, one other small problem I remember
with exclusive waiters is that losing to a concurrent locker puts them to
the back of the queue. I think that could be fixed with some small change to
the wait loops (first add to tail, then retries add to head). Thoughts?

Thanks,
Nick