linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the reader waiter to nil

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <729ceddb-dd9a-ec2a-f74e-03fa4d7e65e8@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:26:34 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Yongji Xie <elohimes@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        will.deacon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        xieyongji@...du.com, zhangyu31@...du.com, liuqi16@...du.com,
        yuanlinsi01@...du.com, nixun@...du.com, lilin24@...du.com,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the
 reader waiter to nil

On 11/29/2018 01:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:27:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> wake_up_q() should, per the barriers in wake_up_process, ensure that if
>> wake_a_add() fails, there will be a wakeup of that task after that
>> point.
>>
>> So if we put wake_up_q() at the location where wake_up_process() should
>> be, it should all work.
>>
>> The bug in question is that it can happen at any time after
>> wake_q_add(), not necessarily at wake_up_q().
> Hmm, I think we're missing a barrier in wake_q_add(); when cmpxchg()
> fails we still need an smp_mb().
>
> Something like so.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 3d87a28da378..69def558edf6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -400,6 +400,13 @@ void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task)
>  {
>  	struct wake_q_node *node = &task->wake_q;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Ensure, that when the below cmpxchg() fails, the corresponding
> +	 * wake_up_q() will observe our prior state.
> +	 *
> +	 * Pairs with the smp_mb() from wake_up_q()'s wake_up_process().
> +	 */
> +	smp_mb();
>  	/*
>  	 * Atomically grab the task, if ->wake_q is !nil already it means
>  	 * its already queued (either by us or someone else) and will get the
> @@ -408,7 +415,7 @@ void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task)
>  	 * This cmpxchg() executes a full barrier, which pairs with the full
>  	 * barrier executed by the wakeup in wake_up_q().
>  	 */
> -	if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
> +	if (cmpxchg_relaxed(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
>  		return;
>  
>  	get_task_struct(task);

That can be costly for x86 which will now have 2 locked instructions.
Should we introduce a kind of special cmpxchg (e.g. cmpxchg_mb) that
will guarantee a memory barrier whether the operation fails or not?

Cheers,
Longman