linux-kernel - Re: write_lock_irq(&tasklist

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 23:14:05 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        psodagud@...eaurora.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, sherryy@...roid.com,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, stern@...land.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)

> Yeah, lemme put some details here:
> 
> So we have three cases:
> 
> Case #1 (from Will)
> 
> 	P0:			P1:			P2:
> 
> 	spin_lock(&slock)	read_lock(&rwlock)
> 							write_lock(&rwlock)
> 	read_lock(&rwlock)	spin_lock(&slock)
> 
> , which is a deadlock, and couldn't not be detected by lockdep yet. And
> lockdep could detect this with the patch I attach at the end of the
> mail.
> 
> Case #2
> 
> 	P0:			P1:			P2:
> 
> 	<in irq handler>
> 	spin_lock(&slock)	read_lock(&rwlock)
> 							write_lock(&rwlock)
> 	read_lock(&rwlock)	spin_lock_irq(&slock)
> 
> , which is not a deadlock, as the read_lock() on P0 can use the unfair
> fastpass.
> 
> Case #3
> 
> 	P0:			P1:			P2:
> 
> 				<in irq handler>
> 	spin_lock_irq(&slock)	read_lock(&rwlock)
> 							write_lock_irq(&rwlock)
> 	read_lock(&rwlock)	spin_lock(&slock)
> 
> , which is a deadlock, as the read_lock() on P0 cannot use the fastpass.

Mmh, I'm starting to think that, maybe, we need a model (a tool) to
distinguish these and other(?) cases (sorry, I could not resist ;-)

[...]


> ------------------->8
> Subject: [PATCH] locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()
> 
> On the archs using QUEUED_RWLOCKS, read_lock() is not always a recursive
> read lock, actually it's only recursive if in_interrupt() is true. So

Mmh, taking the "common denominator" over archs/Kconfig options and
CPU states, this would suggest that read_lock() is non-recursive;

it looks like I can say "good-bye" to my idea to define (formalize)
consistent executions/the memory ordering of RW-LOCKS "by following"
the following _emulation_:

void read_lock(rwlock_t *s)
{
	r0 = atomic_fetch_inc_acquire(&s->val);
}

void read_unlock(rwlock_t *s)
{
	r0 = atomic_fetch_sub_release(&s->val);
}

void write_lock(rwlock_t *s)
{
	r0 = atomic_cmpxchg_acquire(&s->val, 0, -1);
}

void write_unlock(rwlock_t *s)
{
	atomic_set_release(&s->val, 0);
}

filter (~read_lock:r0=-1 /\ write_lock:r0=0)

[...]


> The code is done, I'm just working on the rework for documention stuff,
> so if anyone is interested, could try it out ;-)

Any idea on how to "educate" the LKMM about this code/documentation?

  Andrea