linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: process fput task_work with TWA

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]

Date:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 07:21:52 +0100
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: process fput task_work with TWA_SIGNAL

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 6:30 AM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:29:11AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Song reported a boot regression in a kvm image with 5.11-rc, and bisected
> > it down to the below patch. Debugging this issue, turns out that the boot
> > stalled when a task is waiting on a pipe being released. As we no longer
> > run task_work from get_signal() unless it's queued with TWA_SIGNAL, the
> > task goes idle without running the task_work. This prevents ->release()
> > from being called on the pipe, which another boot task is waiting on.
> >
> > Use TWA_SIGNAL for the file fput work to ensure it's run before the task
> > goes idle.
> >
> > Fixes: 98b89b649fce ("signal: kill JOBCTL_TASK_WORK")
> > Reported-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > The other alternative here is obviously to re-instate the:
> >
> > if (unlikely(current->task_works))
> >       task_work_run();
> >
> > in get_signal() that we had before this change. Might be safer in case
> > there are other cases that need to ensure the work is run in a timely
> > fashion, though I do think it's cleaner to long term to correctly mark
> > task_work with the needed notification type. Comments welcome...
>
> Interesting...  I think I've missed the discussion of that thing; could
> you forward the relevant thread my way or give an archive link to it?

See [1].

- Sedat -

[1] https://marc.info/?t=160987156600001&r=1&w=2