linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: Give priority to readers with irqs disabled to prevent deadlock

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:   Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:18:18 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: Give priority to readers with irqs
 disabled to prevent deadlock

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:51:08PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 04.04.2018 18:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:24:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> The following situation leads to deadlock:
> >>
> >> [task 1]                          [task 2]                         [task 3]
> >> kill_fasync()                     mm_update_next_owner()           copy_process()
> >>  spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock)   read_lock(&tasklist_lock)        write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
> >>   send_sigio()                    <IRQ>                             ...
> >>    read_lock(&fown->lock)         kill_fasync()                     ...
> >>     read_lock(&tasklist_lock)      spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock)  ...
> >>
> >> Task 1 can't acquire read locked tasklist_lock, since there is
> >> already task 3 expressed its wish to take the lock exclusive.
> >> Task 2 holds the read locked lock, but it can't take the spin lock.
> >>
> >> The patch makes queued_read_lock_slowpath() to give task 1 the same
> >> priority as it was an interrupt handler, and to take the lock
> > 
> > That re-introduces starvation scenarios. And the above looks like a
> > proper deadlock that should be sorted by fixing the locking order.
> 
> We can move tasklist_lock out of send_sigio(), but I'm not sure
> it's possible for read_lock(&fown->lock).

So the scenario is:

CPU0			CPU1				CPU2

spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock);
			read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
							write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
			<IRQ>
			  spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock);


Right? (where the row now signifies time)

That doesn't seem to include fown->lock, you're saying it has an
identical issue?

> Is there another solution? Is there reliable way to iterate do_each_pid_task()
> with rcu_read_lock()?

Depends on what you call reliable :-), Yes you can use
do_each_pid_task() with RCU, but as always you're prone to see tasks
that are dead and miss tasks that just came in.

If that is sufficient for the signal muck, dunno :/ Typically signals
use sighand lock, not tasklist_lock.