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  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]
Date:   Mon,  4 Mar 2019 09:22:19 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Yongji Xie <elohimes@...il.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 36/78] sched/wake_q: Fix wakeup ordering for wake_q

4.19-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

[ Upstream commit 4c4e3731564c8945ac5ac90fc2a1e1f21cb79c92 ]

Notable cmpxchg() does not provide ordering when it fails, however
wake_q_add() requires ordering in this specific case too. Without this
it would be possible for the concurrent wakeup to not observe our
prior state.

Andrea Parri provided:

  C wake_up_q-wake_q_add

  {
	int next = 0;
	int y = 0;
  }

  P0(int *next, int *y)
  {
	int r0;

	/* in wake_up_q() */

	WRITE_ONCE(*next, 1);   /* node->next = NULL */
	smp_mb();               /* implied by wake_up_process() */
	r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
  }

  P1(int *next, int *y)
  {
	int r1;

	/* in wake_q_add() */

	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);      /* wake_cond = true */
	smp_mb__before_atomic();
	r1 = cmpxchg_relaxed(next, 1, 2);
  }

  exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r1=0)

  This "exists" clause cannot be satisfied according to the LKMM:

  Test wake_up_q-wake_q_add Allowed
  States 3
  0:r0=0; 1:r1=1;
  0:r0=1; 1:r1=0;
  0:r0=1; 1:r1=1;
  No
  Witnesses
  Positive: 0 Negative: 3
  Condition exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r1=0)
  Observation wake_up_q-wake_q_add Never 0 3

Reported-by: Yongji Xie <elohimes@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 13ddfa46d741f..152a0b0c91bb6 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -405,10 +405,11 @@ void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task)
 	 * its already queued (either by us or someone else) and will get the
 	 * wakeup due to that.
 	 *
-	 * This cmpxchg() executes a full barrier, which pairs with the full
-	 * barrier executed by the wakeup in wake_up_q().
+	 * In order to ensure that a pending wakeup will observe our pending
+	 * state, even in the failed case, an explicit smp_mb() must be used.
 	 */
-	if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
+	smp_mb__before_atomic();
+	if (cmpxchg_relaxed(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
 		return;
 
 	get_task_struct(task);
-- 
2.19.1



Powered by blists - more mailing lists