linux-kernel - Re: [BUG]locking/rwsem: only clean RWSEM_FLAG

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: <20211110213854.GE174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 10 Nov 2021 22:38:54 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
        马振华 <mazhenhua@...omi.com>,
        mingo <mingo@...hat.com>, will <will@...nel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG]locking/rwsem: only clean RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF when already
 set

On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 02:52:36PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > 
> > I did have a tentative patch to address this issue which is somewhat
> > similar to your approach. However, I would like to further investigate
> > the exact mechanics of the race condition to make sure that I won't miss
> > a latent bug somewhere else in the rwsem code.
> 
> I still couldn't figure how this race condition can happen. However, I do
> discover that it is possible to leave rwsem with no waiter but handoff bit
> set if we kill or interrupt all the waiters in the wait queue. I have just
> sent out a patch to address that concern, but it should be able to handle
> this race condition as well if it really happens.

The comment above RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED seems wrong/out-dated in that
there's a 4th place that modifies the HANDOFF bit namely
rwsem_down_read_slowpath() in the out_nolock: case.

Now the thing I'm most worried about is that rwsem_down_write_slowpath()
modifies the HANDOFF bit depending on wstate, and wstate itself it not
determined under the same ->wait_lock section, so there could be a race
there.

Another thing is that once wstate==HANDOFF, we rely on spin_on_owner()
to return OWNER_NULL such that it goes to trylock_again, however if it
returns anything else then we're at signal_pending_state() and the
observed race can happen.

Now, spin_on_owner() *can* in fact return something else, consider
need_resched() being set for instance.

Combined I think the observed race is valid.

Now before we go make things more complicated, I think we should see if
we can make things simpler. Also I think perhaps the HANDOFF name here
is a misnomer.

I agree that using _andnot() will fix this issue; I also agree with
folding it with the existing _andnot() already there. But let me stare a
little more at this code, something isn't making sense...