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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 01:49:50 +0800
From:   "Xu, Yanfei" <yanfei.xu@...driver.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/kmemleak: use READ_ONCE() for accessing
 jiffies_scan_wait



On 6/11/21 7:17 PM, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/11/21 4:59 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> [Please note: This e-mail is from an EXTERNAL e-mail address]
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 11:56:57PM +0800, Yanfei Xu wrote:
>>> The stop_scan_thread() and start_scan_thread() cannot really solve
>>> the problem of concurrent accessing the global jiffies_scan_wait.
>>>
>>> kmemleak_write              kmemleak_scan_thread
>>>                                while (!kthread_should_stop())
>>>    stop_scan_thread
>>>    jiffies_scan_wait = xxx       timeout = jiffies_scan_wait
>>>    start_scan_thread
>>>
>>> We could replace these with a READ_ONCE() when reading
>>> jiffies_scan_wait. It also can prevent compiler from reordering the
>>> jiffies_scan_wait which is in while loop.
>>
>> I'm ok with READ_ONCE but your patch introduces functional changes.
>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
>>> index 92a2d4885808..5ccf3969b7fe 100644
>>> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
>>> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
>>> @@ -1567,7 +1567,7 @@ static int kmemleak_scan_thread(void *arg)
>>>        }
>>>
>>>        while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>>> -             signed long timeout = jiffies_scan_wait;
>>> +             signed long timeout = READ_ONCE(jiffies_scan_wait);
>>>
>>>                mutex_lock(&scan_mutex);
>>>                kmemleak_scan();
>>> @@ -1812,11 +1812,8 @@ static ssize_t kmemleak_write(struct file 
>>> *file, const char __user *user_buf,
>>>                ret = kstrtoul(buf + 5, 0, &secs);
>>>                if (ret < 0)
>>>                        goto out;
>>> -             stop_scan_thread();
>>> -             if (secs) {
>>> +             if (secs)
>>>                        jiffies_scan_wait = msecs_to_jiffies(secs * 
>>> 1000);
>>
>> For symmetry, I'd add a WRITE_ONCE here as well.
>>
>>> -                     start_scan_thread();
>>> -             }
>>
>> The reason for stop/start_scan_thread() wasn't to protect against
>> jiffies_scan_wait access but rather to force a new delay. Let's say you
>> start by default with a 10min delay between scans (default) but you want
>> to lower it to 1min. With the above removal of stop/start, you'd still
>> have to wait for 10min until the scanning thread will notice the change.
>> Also, with secs=0, the expectations is that the thread won't be
>> restarted but this is removed by your patch.
>>
> 
> I see.
> Thanks for your explain and sorry for my bad introduction. Will send a v2.
> 

Hi Catalin and Andrew,

I sent the v2 patch which is renamed to:
[PATCH] mm/kmemleak: fix the possible wrong memory scanning period

I have tested it on qemux86, and hope you can help to review. Thanks.

--Yanfei

> Thanks,
> Yanfei
> 
>> -- 
>> Catalin
>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists