linux-kernel - Re: wait_on_page_bit_common(TASK_KILLABLE, EXCLUSIVE) can miss wakeup?

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: <1593482844.k3rh7s05o8.astroid@bobo.none>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:08:32 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: wait_on_page_bit_common(TASK_KILLABLE, EXCLUSIVE) can miss
 wakeup?

Excerpts from Oleg Nesterov's message of June 30, 2020 12:02 am:
> On 06/29, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>>
>> prepare_to_wait_event() has a pretty good pattern (and comment), I would
>> favour using that (test the signal when inserting on the waitqueue).
>>
>> @@ -1133,6 +1133,15 @@ static inline int wait_on_page_bit_common(wait_queue_head_t *q,
>>         for (;;) {
>>                 spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
>>
>> +               if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
>> +                       /* Must not lose an exclusive wake up, see
>> +                        * prepare_to_wait_event comment */
>> +                       list_del_init(&wait->entry);
>> +                       spin_unlock_irq(&q->lock);
>> +                       ret = -EINTR;
> 
> Basically this is what my patch in the 1st email does. But note that we can't
> just set "ret = -EINTR" here, we will need to clear "ret" if test_and_set_bit()
> below succeeds. That is why I used another "int intr" variable.

You snipped off one more important line of context. No such games are 
required AFAIKS.

Thanks,
Nick