| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190423141714.GO11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:17:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count
negative
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 05:07:56PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> How about the following chunks to disable preemption temporarily for the
> increment-check-decrement sequence?
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
> index dd92b1a93919..4cc03ac66e13 100644
> --- a/include/linux/preempt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
> @@ -250,6 +250,8 @@ do { \
> #define preempt_enable_notrace() barrier()
> #define preemptible() 0
>
> +#define __preempt_disable_nop /* preempt_disable() is nop */
> +
> #endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT */
>
> #ifdef MODULE
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> index 043fd29b7534..54029e6af17b 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -256,11 +256,64 @@ static inline struct task_struct
> *rwsem_get_owner(struct r
> return (struct task_struct *) (cowner
> ? cowner | (sowner & RWSEM_NONSPINNABLE) : sowner);
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * If __preempt_disable_nop is defined, calling preempt_disable() and
> + * preempt_enable() directly is the most efficient way. Otherwise, it may
> + * be more efficient to disable and enable interrupt instead for disabling
> + * preemption tempoarily.
> + */
> +#ifdef __preempt_disable_nop
> +#define disable_preemption() preempt_disable()
> +#define enable_preemption() preempt_enable()
> +#else
> +#define disable_preemption() local_irq_disable()
> +#define enable_preemption() local_irq_enable()
> +#endif
I'm not aware of an architecture where disabling interrupts is faster
than disabling preemption.
> +/*
> + * When the owner task structure pointer is merged into couunt, less bits
> + * will be available for readers. Therefore, there is a very slight chance
> + * that the reader count may overflow. We try to prevent that from
> happening
> + * by checking for the MS bit of the count and failing the trylock attempt
> + * if this bit is set.
> + *
> + * With preemption enabled, there is a remote possibility that preemption
> + * can happen in the narrow timing window between incrementing and
> + * decrementing the reader count and the task is put to sleep for a
> + * considerable amount of time. If sufficient number of such unfortunate
> + * sequence of events happen, we may still overflow the reader count.
> + * To avoid such possibility, we have to disable preemption for the
> + * whole increment-check-decrement sequence.
> + *
> + * The function returns true if there are too many readers and the count
> + * has already been properly decremented so the reader must go directly
> + * into the wait list.
> + */
> +static inline bool rwsem_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem, long *cnt)
> +{
> + bool wait = false; /* Wait now flag */
> +
> + disable_preemption();
> + *cnt = atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
> &sem->count);
> + if (unlikely(*cnt < 0)) {
> + atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
> + wait = true;
> + }
> + enable_preemption();
> + return wait;
> +}
> #else /* !CONFIG_RWSEM_OWNER_COUNT */
This also means you have to ensure CONFIG_NR_CPUS < 32K for
RWSEM_OWNER_COUNT.
> static inline struct task_struct *rwsem_get_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> return READ_ONCE(sem->owner);
> }
> +
> +static inline bool rwsem_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem, long *cnt)
> +{
> + *cnt = atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
> &sem->count);
> + return false;
> +}
> #endif /* CONFIG_RWSEM_OWNER_COUNT */
>
> /*
> @@ -981,32 +1034,18 @@ static inline void clear_wr_nonspinnable(struct
> rw_semaph
> * Wait for the read lock to be granted
> */
> static struct rw_semaphore __sched *
> -rwsem_down_read_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state, long count)
> +rwsem_down_read_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state, const
> bool wait)
> {
> - long adjustment = -RWSEM_READER_BIAS;
> + long count, adjustment = -RWSEM_READER_BIAS;
> bool wake = false;
> struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
> DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
>
> - if (unlikely(count < 0)) {
> + if (unlikely(wait)) {
> /*
> - * The sign bit has been set meaning that too many active
> - * readers are present. We need to decrement reader count &
> - * enter wait queue immediately to avoid overflowing the
> - * reader count.
> - *
> - * As preemption is not disabled, there is a remote
> - * possibility that preemption can happen in the narrow
> - * timing window between incrementing and decrementing
> - * the reader count and the task is put to sleep for a
> - * considerable amount of time. If sufficient number
> - * of such unfortunate sequence of events happen, we
> - * may still overflow the reader count. It is extremely
> - * unlikey, though. If this is a concern, we should consider
> - * disable preemption during this timing window to make
> - * sure that such unfortunate event will not happen.
> + * The reader count has already been decremented and the
> + * reader should go directly into the wait list now.
> */
> - atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
> adjustment = 0;
> goto queue;
> }
> @@ -1358,11 +1397,12 @@ static struct rw_semaphore
> *rwsem_downgrade_wake(struct
> */
> inline void __down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> - long tmp = atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
> - &sem->count);
> + long tmp;
> + bool wait;
>
> + wait = rwsem_read_trylock(sem, &tmp);
> if (unlikely(tmp & RWSEM_READ_FAILED_MASK)) {
> - rwsem_down_read_slowpath(sem, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, tmp);
> + rwsem_down_read_slowpath(sem, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, wait);
> DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(!is_rwsem_reader_owned(sem), sem);
> } else {
> rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
I think I prefer that function returning/taking the bias/adjustment
value instead of a bool, if it is all the same.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists