linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 6/6] tty/ldsem: Decrement wait_readers on timeouted down

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:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:01:58 +0100
From:   Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        Nathan March <nathan@...net>,
        Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
        "Rong, Chen" <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 6/6] tty/ldsem: Decrement wait_readers on timeouted
 down_read()

On Tue, 2018-09-11 at 14:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 02:48:21AM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > It seems like when ldsem_down_read() fails with timeout, it misses
> > update for sem->wait_readers. By that reason, when writer finally
> > releases write end of the semaphore __ldsem_wake_readers() does
> > adjust
> > sem->count with wrong value:
> > sem->wait_readers * (LDSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS - LDSEM_WAIT_BIAS)
> > 
> > I.e, if update comes with 1 missed wait_readers decrement, sem-
> > >count
> > will be 0x100000001 which means that there is active reader and
> > it'll
> > make any further writer to fail in acquiring the semaphore.
> > 
> > It looks like, this is a dead-code, because ldsem_down_read() is
> > never
> > called with timeout different than MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT, so it
> > might be
> > worth to delete timeout parameter and error path fall-back..
> 
> You might want to think about ditching that ldsem thing entirely, and
> use a regular rwsem ?

Yeah, but AFAICS, regular rwsem will need to have a timeout then (for
write). So, I thought fixing this pile would be simpler than adding
timeout and probably writer-priority to generic rwsem?

And I guess, we still will need fixes for stable for the bugs here..

I expect that timeouts are ABI, while the gain of adding priority may
be measured. I'll give it a shot (adding timeout/priority for linux-
next) to rwsem if you say it's acceptable.

-- 
Thanks,
             Dmitry