linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] Fix: sched/membarrier: p->mm->membarrier

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, 12 Sep 2019 16:47:35 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "Russell King, ARM Linux" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
        Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] Fix: sched/membarrier: p->mm->membarrier_state
 racy load (v2)

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:24:35PM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:48 PM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > So the man page for sys_membarrier states that the expedited variants "never
> > block", which feels pretty strong. Do any other system calls claim to
> > provide this guarantee without a failure path if blocking is necessary?
> 
> The traditional semantics for "we don't block" is that "we block on
> memory allocations and locking and user accesses etc, but  we don't
> wait for our own IO".
> 
> So there may be new IO started (and waited on) as part of allocating
> new memory etc, or in just paging in user memory, but the IO that the
> operation _itself_ explicitly starts is not waited on.

Thanks, that makes sense, and I'd be inclined to suggest an update to the
sys_membarrier manpage to make this more clear since the "never blocks"
phrasing doesn't seem to be used like this for other system calls.

> No system call should ever be considered "atomic" in any sense. If
> you're doing RT, you should maybe expect "getpid()" to not ever block,
> but that's just about the exclusive list of truly nonblocking system
> calls, and even that can be preempted.

In which case, why can't we just use GFP_KERNEL for the cpumask allocation
instead of GFP_NOWAIT and then remove the failure path altogether? Mathieu?

Will