linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] swait: add missing barrier to swake

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170901195529.6edca064@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Sep 2017 19:55:29 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swait: add missing barrier to swake_up

On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:23:22 +0200
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:14:50PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > swake_up and swake_up_all test the swaitqueue outside the lock,
> > but they are missing the barrier that would ensure visibility
> > of a previous store that sets the wakeup condition with the
> > load that tests the swaitqueue. This could lead to a lost wakeup
> > if there is memory reordering. Fix this as prescribed by the
> > waitqueue_active comments.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
> > --
> > I noticed this when chasing down that rcu hang bug (which
> > turned out to not be anything of the sort). I might be missing
> > something here and it's safe somehow, but if so then it should
> > have a comment where it diverges from normal waitqueues.
> > 
> > It looks like there's a few callers which are also testing
> > swait_active before swake_up without a barrier which look wrong,
> > so I must be missing something but I'm not sure what.  
> 
> Hi Nicholas. I noticed
> 
>   35a2897c2a306cca344ca5c0b43416707018f434
>   ("sched/wait: Remove the lockless swait_active() check in swake_up*()")
> 
> in tip:locking/core.

Oh thanks, I missed that. Should be in 4.14/stable IMO.

As I said as well, several callers have picked up bad habits. RCU
looks okay though.

Thanks,
Nick