linux-kernel - Re: handle_exit_race && PF

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911051920420.1869@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 5 Nov 2019 19:56:01 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Shawn Landden <shawn@....icu>,
        libc-alpha@...rceware.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: handle_exit_race && PF_EXITING

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Nov 2019, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 11/05, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Out of curiosity, what's the race issue vs. robust list which you are
> > > > trying to solve?
> > > 
> > > Off-topic, but this reminds me...
> > > 
> > > 	#include <sched.h>
> > > 	#include <assert.h>
> > > 	#include <unistd.h>
> > > 	#include <syscall.h>
> > > 
> > > 	#define FUTEX_LOCK_PI		6
> > > 
> > > 	int main(void)
> > > 	{
> > > 		struct sched_param sp = {};
> > > 
> > > 		sp.sched_priority = 2;
> > > 		assert(sched_setscheduler(0, SCHED_FIFO, &sp) == 0);
> > > 
> > > 		int lock = vfork();
> > > 		if (!lock) {
> > > 			sp.sched_priority = 1;
> > > 			assert(sched_setscheduler(0, SCHED_FIFO, &sp) == 0);
> > > 			_exit(0);
> > > 		}
> > > 
> > > 		syscall(__NR_futex, &lock, FUTEX_LOCK_PI, 0,0,0);
> > > 		return 0;
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > this creates the unkillable RT process spinning in futex_lock_pi() on
> > > a single CPU machine (or you can use taskset).
> > 
> > Uuurgh.
> 
> But staring more at it. That's a scheduler bug.
> 
> parent	    	    	child
> 
>  set FIFO prio 2
> 
>  fork()	         ->	set FIFO prio 1
>  		 	 sched_setscheduler(...)
> 			   return from syscall		<= BUG
> 
>  		 	_exit()
> 
> When the child lowers its priority from 2 to 1, then the parent _must_
> preempt the child simply because the parent is now the top priority task on
> that CPU. Child should never reach exit before the parent blocks on the
> futex.

I'm a moron. It's vfork() not fork() so the behaviour is expected.

Staring more at the trace which shows me where this goes down the drain.

Thanks,

	tglx