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: <20191014125911.GF2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:59:11 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, 1vier1@....de,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ipc/mqueue.c: Update/document memory barriers

On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 07:49:55AM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:

>  	for (;;) {
> +		/* memory barrier not required, we hold info->lock */
>  		__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>  
>  		spin_unlock(&info->lock);
>  		time = schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock(timeout, 0,
>  			HRTIMER_MODE_ABS, CLOCK_REALTIME);
>  
> +		if (READ_ONCE(ewp->state) == STATE_READY) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Pairs, together with READ_ONCE(), with
> +			 * the barrier in __pipelined_op().
> +			 */
> +			smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
>  			retval = 0;
>  			goto out;
>  		}
>  		spin_lock(&info->lock);
> +
> +		/* we hold info->lock, so no memory barrier required */
> +		if (READ_ONCE(ewp->state) == STATE_READY) {
>  			retval = 0;
>  			goto out_unlock;
>  		}
> @@ -925,14 +933,12 @@ static inline void __pipelined_op(struct wake_q_head *wake_q,
>  	list_del(&this->list);
>  	wake_q_add(wake_q, this->task);
>  	/*
> +	 * The barrier is required to ensure that the refcount increase
> +	 * inside wake_q_add() is completed before the state is updated.

fails to explain *why* this is important.

> +	 *
> +	 * The barrier pairs with READ_ONCE()+smp_mb__after_ctrl_dep().
>  	 */
> +        smp_store_release(&this->state, STATE_READY);

You retained the whitespace damage.

And I'm terribly confused by this code, probably due to the lack of
'why' as per the above. What is this trying to do?

Are we worried about something like:

	A			B				C


				wq_sleep()
				  schedule_...();

								/* spuriuos wakeup */
								wake_up_process(B)

	wake_q_add(A)
	  if (cmpxchg()) // success

	->state = STATE_READY (reordered)

				  if (READ_ONCE() == STATE_READY)
				    goto out;

				exit();


	    get_task_struct() // UaF


Can we put the exact and full race in the comment please?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ