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  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:   Sun, 10 Sep 2017 11:20:40 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org
Cc:     npiggin@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86,kvm: Fix apf_task_wake_one() serialization

On 05/09/2017 21:00, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> During code inspection, the following potential race was seen:
> 
> CPU0   	    		    	     	CPU1
> kvm_async_pf_task_wait			apf_task_wake_one
>   [S] prepare_to_swait(&n.wq)
> 					  [L] swait_active(&n->wq)
> 					  [S] hlist_del_init(&n->link);
>   [L] if (!hlist_unhahed(&n.link))
> 	schedule()
> 
> Properly serialize swait_active() checks such that a wakeup is
> not missed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> index 874827b0d7ca..aa60a08b65b1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static void apf_task_wake_one(struct kvm_task_sleep_node *n)
>  	hlist_del_init(&n->link);
>  	if (n->halted)
>  		smp_send_reschedule(n->cpu);
> -	else if (swait_active(&n->wq))
> +	else if (swq_has_sleeper(&n->wq))
>  		swake_up(&n->wq);
>  }

After Nick's patch, swake_up starts with:

	smp_mb();
        if (!swait_active(q))
                return;

so we can just remove the test here (and in patch 2).

The other patches could also use a better swait API, for example:

1) add a public __swake_up routine that omits the memory barrier, and
which can be used in patch 3.  Perhaps better: omit the out-of-lock
check in __swake_up: then the caller can use it if it knows there is a
waiter.  In those cases the memory barrier is expensive.

2) change swake_up and __swake_up to return true if they woke up a
process (or alternatively 0/-EAGAIN).  Patches 5 and 6 now need not call
anymore either swq_has_sleepers or swait_active, and that saves a memory
barrier too.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists