linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Refactor snapshot vs nocow writers locking

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]

Message-ID: <69ef76a2-ebd6-956e-c611-2e742606ed95@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:03:34 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        paulmck@...ux.ibm.com, andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Refactor snapshot vs nocow writers locking

On 29/07/2019 17:32, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 29/07/2019 16:33, Catalin Marinas wrote:
[...]
>> I'd say that's one of the pitfalls of PlusCal. The above is executed
>> atomically, so you'd have the lock_state read and updated in the same
>> action. Looking at the C patches, there is an
>> atomic_read(&lock->readers) followed by a
>> percpu_counter_inc(&lock->writers). Between these two, you can have
>> "readers" becoming non-zero via a different CPU.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to use procedures with labels to express the
>> non-atomicity of such sequences.
>>
> 

FYI, with a very simple and stupid modification of the spec:

----->8-----
macro ReadUnlock()
{
    reader_count := reader_count - 1;
    \* Condition variable signal is "implicit" here
}

macro WriteUnlock()
{
    writer_count := writer_count - 1;
    \* Ditto on the cond var
}

procedure ReadLock()
{
add:
    reader_count := reader_count + 1;
lock:
    await writer_count = 0;
    return;
}

procedure WriteLock()
{
add:
    writer_count := writer_count + 1;
lock:
    await reader_count = 0;
    return;
};
-----8<-----

it's quite easy to trigger the case Paul pointed out in [1]:

----->8-----
Error: Deadlock reached.
Error: The behavior up to this point is:
State 1: <Initial predicate>
/\ stack = (<<reader, 1>> :> <<>> @@ <<writer, 1>> :> <<>>)
/\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "loop" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "loop_")
/\ writer_count = 0
/\ reader_count = 0
/\ lock_state = "idle"

State 2: <loop_ line 159, col 16 to line 164, col 72 of module specs>
/\ stack = ( <<reader, 1>> :> <<>> @@
  <<writer, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "write_cs", procedure |-> "WriteLock"]>> )
/\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "loop" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "add")
/\ writer_count = 0
/\ reader_count = 0
/\ lock_state = "idle"

State 3: <add line 146, col 14 to line 149, col 63 of module specs>
/\ stack = ( <<reader, 1>> :> <<>> @@
  <<writer, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "write_cs", procedure |-> "WriteLock"]>> )
/\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "loop" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "lock")
/\ writer_count = 1
/\ reader_count = 0
/\ lock_state = "idle"

State 4: <loop line 179, col 15 to line 184, col 71 of module specs>
/\ stack = ( <<reader, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "read_cs", procedure |-> "ReadLock"]>> @@
  <<writer, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "write_cs", procedure |-> "WriteLock"]>> )
/\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "add_" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "lock")
/\ writer_count = 1
/\ reader_count = 0
/\ lock_state = "idle"

State 5: <add_ line 133, col 15 to line 136, col 64 of module specs>
/\ stack = ( <<reader, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "read_cs", procedure |-> "ReadLock"]>> @@
  <<writer, 1>> :> <<[pc |-> "write_cs", procedure |-> "WriteLock"]>> )
/\ pc = (<<reader, 1>> :> "lock_" @@ <<writer, 1>> :> "lock")
/\ writer_count = 1
/\ reader_count = 1
/\ lock_state = "idle"
-----8<-----

Which I think is pretty cool considering the effort that was required
(read: not much).

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190607105251.GB28207@linux.ibm.com/