linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v0.8 3/6] sched/umcg: implement UMCG syscalls

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, 5 Nov 2021 19:48:21 -0400
From:   Thierry Delisle <tdelisle@...terloo.ca>
To:     Peter Oskolkov <posk@...k.io>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Peter Oskolkov <posk@...gle.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0.8 3/6] sched/umcg: implement UMCG syscalls

On 2021-11-04 3:58 p.m., Peter Oskolkov wrote:
 > +/*
 > + * Try to wake up. May be called with preempt_disable set. May be called
 > + * cross-process.
 > + *
 > + * Note: umcg_ttwu succeeds even if ttwu fails: see wait/wake state
 > + *       ordering logic.
 > + */
 > +static int umcg_ttwu(u32 next_tid, int wake_flags)
 > +{
 > +    struct task_struct *next;
 > +
 > +    rcu_read_lock();
 > +    next = find_task_by_vpid(next_tid);
 > +    if (!next || !umcg_wakeup_allowed(next)) {
 > +        rcu_read_unlock();
 > +        return -ESRCH;
 > +    }
 > +
 > +    /* The result of ttwu below is ignored. */
 > +    try_to_wake_up(next, TASK_NORMAL, wake_flags);
 > +    rcu_read_unlock();
 > +
 > +    return 0;
 > +}

Doesn't try_to_wake_up return different values based on whether or not a 
task
was woken up? I think it could be useful to propagate that result instead of
always returning zero. Even if it only helps for debugging.



 > +static bool enqueue_idle_worker(struct umcg_task __user *ut_worker)
 > +{
 > +    u64 __user *node = &ut_worker->idle_workers_ptr;
 > +    u64 __user *head_ptr;
 > +    u64 first = (u64)node;
 > +    u64 head;
 > +
 > +    if (get_user(head, node) || !head)
 > +        return false;
 > +
 > +    head_ptr = (u64 __user *)head;
 > +
 > +    /* Mark the worker as pending. */
 > +    if (put_user(UMCG_IDLE_NODE_PENDING, node))
 > +        return false;
 > +
 > +    /* Make the head point to the worker. */
 > +    if (xchg_user_64(head_ptr, &first))
 > +        return false;
 > +
 > +    /* Make the worker point to the previous head. */
 > +    if (put_user(first, node))
 > +        return false;
 > +
 > +    return true;
 > +}

If the last two operation return false, whichever task tries to consume the
list could deadlock, depending on whether or not the ensuing
force_sig(SIGKILL); reaches the consuming task. Does the force_sig kill
the task or the entire process. Is it possible to consume this list from a
different process that shares the memory? I'm wondering if the last
two "return false" should attempt to retract the
UMCG_IDLE_NODE_PENDING.