linux-kernel - Re: Warning from swake_up_all in 4.14.15-rt13 non-RT

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]

Message-ID: <20180312132729.GI4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:27:29 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Warning from swake_up_all in 4.14.15-rt13 non-RT

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:51:13AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-03-09 23:26:43 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:25:50PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > Is it just about the irqsave() usage or something else? I doubt it is
> > > the list walk. It is still unbound if not called from irq-off region.
> > 
> > The current list walk is preemptible. You put the entire iteration (of
> > unbound length) inside a single critical section which destroy RT.
> 
> I considered that list walk as cheap. We don't do any wake ups with the
> list walk - just mark the task for a later wake up. But if it is not I
> could add an upper limit of 20 iterations or so.

So the problem is that as soon as this is exposed to userspace you've
lost.

If a user can stack like 10000 tasks on the completion before triggering
it, you've got yourself a giant !preempt section. Yes the wake_q stuff
is cheaper, but unbound is still unbound.

wake_all must not be used from !preemptible (IRQ or otherwise) sections.
And I'm not seeing how waking just the top 20 helps.

> > Why isn't this a problem on RT?
> So we remain in the preempt_disable() section due to RCU-sched so we
> have this, yes. But the "disabled interrupts" part is due to
> spin_lock_irqsave() which is a non-issue on RT. So if we managed to get
> rid of the rcu-sched then the swait can go and we can stick with the
> wake_up_all() on RT, too.

OK, so for RT we simply loose the IRQ-disable thing, but its still a
!preemptible section.