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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:43:29 -0800
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
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,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the
 reader waiter to nil

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:12:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Yes, I think this is real, and worse, I think we need to go audit all
>> wake_q_add() users and document this behaviour.
>>
>> In the ideal case we'd delay the actual wakeup to the last wake_up_q(),
>> but I don't think we can easily fix that.
>
>See commit: 1d0dcb3ad9d3 ("futex: Implement lockless wakeups"), I think
>that introduces the exact same bug.
>
>Something like the below perhaps, altough this pattern seems to want a
>wake_a_add() variant that already assumes get_task_struct().

So I was looking at ways to avoid the redundant reference counting,
but given how wake_q_add() and wake_up_q() are so loose I can't
see how to avoid it -- we hold reference across the calls to maintain
valid mem.

For example, wake_q will grab reference iff the cmpxchg succeeds,
likewise it will enter the wakeup loop in wake_up_q(), and there is no
awareness of which caller had the failed cmpxchg because another wakup
was in progress.

And yes, afaict all wake_q users suffer from the same issue, so we have
to move the wake_q_add() after the condition, while explicitly doing
the task ref counting.

Thanks,
Davidlohr