[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191008142413.h5kczta7jo4ado6u@wittgenstein>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:24:14 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, bsingharora@...il.com,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzbot <syzbot+c5d03165a1bd1dead0c1@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] taskstats: fix data-race
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 04:20:35PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:18:26PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:14 PM Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > static struct taskstats *taskstats_tgid_alloc(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > struct signal_struct *sig = tsk->signal;
> > > > > > - struct taskstats *stats;
> > > > > > + struct taskstats *stats_new, *stats;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - if (sig->stats || thread_group_empty(tsk))
> > > > > > - goto ret;
> > > > > > + /* Pairs with smp_store_release() below. */
> > > > > > + stats = READ_ONCE(sig->stats);
> > > > >
> > > > > This pairing suggests that the READ_ONCE() is heading an address
> > > > > dependency, but I fail to identify it: what is the target memory
> > > > > access of such a (putative) dependency?
> > > >
> > > > I would assume callers of this function access *stats. So the
> > > > dependency is between loading stats and accessing *stats.
> > >
> > > AFAICT, the only caller of the function in 5.4-rc2 is taskstats_exit(),
> > > which 'casts' the return value to a boolean (so I really don't see how
> > > any address dependency could be carried over/relied upon here).
> >
> > This does not make sense.
> >
> > But later taskstats_exit does:
> >
> > memcpy(stats, tsk->signal->stats, sizeof(*stats));
> >
> > Perhaps it's supposed to use stats returned by taskstats_tgid_alloc?
>
> Seems reasonable to me. If so, replacing the READ_ONCE() in question
> with an smp_load_acquire() might be the solution. Thoughts?
I've done that already in my tree yesterday. I can resend for another
review if you'd prefer.
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists