| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ce48ed9e48eda3c0f27d2f417314bd00cb1a68db.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 07:07:24 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>,
kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6%
regression
On Mon, 2020-03-16 at 16:06 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
[...]
> No, we really do need fl_blocked_requests to be empty.
> After fl_blocker is cleared, the owner might check for other blockers
> and might queue behind them leaving the blocked requests in place.
> Or it might have to detach all those blocked requests and wake them up
> so they can go and fend for themselves.
>
> I think the worse-case scenario could go something like that.
> Process A get a lock - Al
> Process B tries to get a conflicting lock and blocks Bl -> Al
> Process C tries to get a conflicting lock and blocks on B:
> Cl -> Bl -> Al
>
> At much the same time that C goes to attach Cl to Bl, A
> calls unlock and B get signaled.
>
> So A is calling locks_wake_up_blocks(Al) - which takes blocked_lock_lock.
> C is calling locks_insert_block(Bl, Cl) - which also takes the lock
> B is calling locks_delete_block(Bl) which might not take the lock.
>
> Assume C gets the lock first.
>
> Before C calls locks_insert_block, Bl->fl_blocked_requests is empty.
> After A finishes in locks_wake_up_blocks, Bl->fl_blocker is NULL
>
> If B sees that fl_blocker is NULL, we need it to see that
> fl_blocked_requests is no longer empty, so that it takes the lock and
> cleans up fl_blocked_requests.
>
> If the list_empty test on fl_blocked_request goes after the fl_blocker
> test, the memory barriers we have should assure that. I had thought
> that it would need an extra barrier, but as a spinlock places the change
> to fl_blocked_requests *before* the change to fl_blocker, I no longer
> think that is needed.
Got it. I was thinking all of the waiters of a blocker would already be
awoken once fl_blocker was set to NULL, but you're correct and they
aren't. How about this?
-----------------8<------------------
From f40e865842ae84a9d465ca9edb66f0985c1587d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:35:43 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] locks: reinstate locks_delete_block optimization
There is measurable performance impact in some synthetic tests due to
commit 6d390e4b5d48 (locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when
wakeup a waiter). Fix the race condition instead by clearing the
fl_blocker pointer after the wake_up, using explicit acquire/release
semantics.
This does mean that we can no longer use the clearing of fl_blocker as
the wait condition, so switch the waiters over to checking whether the
fl_blocked_member list_head is empty.
Cc: yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Fixes: 6d390e4b5d48 (locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter)
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
---
fs/cifs/file.c | 3 ++-
fs/locks.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
index 3b942ecdd4be..8f9d849a0012 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/file.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
@@ -1169,7 +1169,8 @@ cifs_posix_lock_set(struct file *file, struct file_lock *flock)
rc = posix_lock_file(file, flock, NULL);
up_write(&cinode->lock_sem);
if (rc == FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED) {
- rc = wait_event_interruptible(flock->fl_wait, !flock->fl_blocker);
+ rc = wait_event_interruptible(flock->fl_wait,
+ list_empty(&flock->fl_blocked_member));
if (!rc)
goto try_again;
locks_delete_block(flock);
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 426b55d333d5..eaf754ecdaa8 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -725,7 +725,6 @@ static void __locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
{
locks_delete_global_blocked(waiter);
list_del_init(&waiter->fl_blocked_member);
- waiter->fl_blocker = NULL;
}
static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
@@ -740,6 +739,12 @@ static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify(waiter);
else
wake_up(&waiter->fl_wait);
+
+ /*
+ * Tell the world we're done with it - see comment at
+ * top of locks_delete_block().
+ */
+ smp_store_release(&waiter->fl_blocker, NULL);
}
}
@@ -753,11 +758,30 @@ int locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
{
int status = -ENOENT;
+ /*
+ * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread "owns"
+ * the lock and is the only one that might try to claim the lock.
+ * Because fl_blocker is explicitly set last during a delete, it's
+ * safe to locklessly test to see if it's NULL. If it is, then we know
+ * that no new locks can be inserted into its fl_blocked_requests list,
+ * and we can therefore avoid doing anything further as long as that
+ * list is empty.
+ */
+ if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->fl_blocker) &&
+ list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests))
+ return status;
+
spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
if (waiter->fl_blocker)
status = 0;
__locks_wake_up_blocks(waiter);
__locks_delete_block(waiter);
+
+ /*
+ * Tell the world we're done with it - see comment at top
+ * of this function
+ */
+ smp_store_release(&waiter->fl_blocker, NULL);
spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
return status;
}
@@ -1350,7 +1374,8 @@ static int posix_lock_inode_wait(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *fl)
error = posix_lock_inode(inode, fl, NULL);
if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
break;
- error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_blocker);
+ error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait,
+ list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_member));
if (error)
break;
}
@@ -1435,7 +1460,8 @@ int locks_mandatory_area(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp, loff_t start,
error = posix_lock_inode(inode, &fl, NULL);
if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
break;
- error = wait_event_interruptible(fl.fl_wait, !fl.fl_blocker);
+ error = wait_event_interruptible(fl.fl_wait,
+ list_empty(&fl.fl_blocked_member));
if (!error) {
/*
* If we've been sleeping someone might have
@@ -1638,7 +1664,8 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
locks_dispose_list(&dispose);
error = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(new_fl->fl_wait,
- !new_fl->fl_blocker, break_time);
+ list_empty(&new_fl->fl_blocked_member),
+ break_time);
percpu_down_read(&file_rwsem);
spin_lock(&ctx->flc_lock);
@@ -2122,7 +2149,8 @@ static int flock_lock_inode_wait(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *fl)
error = flock_lock_inode(inode, fl);
if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
break;
- error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_blocker);
+ error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait,
+ list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_member));
if (error)
break;
}
@@ -2399,7 +2427,8 @@ static int do_lock_file_wait(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
error = vfs_lock_file(filp, cmd, fl, NULL);
if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
break;
- error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_blocker);
+ error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait,
+ list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_member));
if (error)
break;
}
--
2.24.1
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (863 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists