linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] timers/urgent for v5.16-rc1

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: <YZKCBqmb1gfKvFcR@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:51:34 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] timers/urgent for v5.16-rc1

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 11:02:31AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 5:31 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> But apparently it matters for posix_cputimers_work and for numa_work,
> and so I think it's very illogical that init_task_work() will not
> actually initialize it properly.

The problem with the posix timers thing seems to be that it can race
against fork() but afaict it can't actually mis-behave if it has garbage
in ->next, so the clearing here is pure paranoia.

> And that task_tick_numa() special case is truly horrendous, and really
> should go after the init_task_work() regardless, exactly because you'd
> expect that init_task_work() to initialize the work even if it doesn't
> happen to right now.

Yeah, it's a wee bit 'special' allright :-)

> Or is somebody doing init_task_work() to only change the work-function
> on an already initialized work entry? Becuase that sounds both racy
> and broken to me, and none of the things I looked at from a quick grep
> looked like that at all.

The worst I found is someone sharing an rcu_head between task_work and
call_rcu (supposedly at different stages in the life-time).

I couldn't find any other weird cases.

---
 include/linux/task_work.h      | 1 +
 kernel/sched/fair.c            | 4 ++--
 kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c | 2 --
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/task_work.h b/include/linux/task_work.h
index 5b8a93f288bb..fbbc9aa8e4ae 100644
--- a/include/linux/task_work.h
+++ b/include/linux/task_work.h
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ typedef void (*task_work_func_t)(struct callback_head *);
 static inline void
 init_task_work(struct callback_head *twork, task_work_func_t func)
 {
+	twork->next = NULL;
 	twork->func = func;
 }
 
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 6e476f6d9435..d03dacdecf73 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -2823,14 +2823,14 @@ void init_numa_balancing(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *p)
 	p->node_stamp			= 0;
 	p->numa_scan_seq		= mm ? mm->numa_scan_seq : 0;
 	p->numa_scan_period		= sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay;
-	/* Protect against double add, see task_tick_numa and task_numa_work */
-	p->numa_work.next		= &p->numa_work;
 	p->numa_faults			= NULL;
 	RCU_INIT_POINTER(p->numa_group, NULL);
 	p->last_task_numa_placement	= 0;
 	p->last_sum_exec_runtime	= 0;
 
 	init_task_work(&p->numa_work, task_numa_work);
+	/* Protect against double add, see task_tick_numa and task_numa_work */
+	p->numa_work.next		= &p->numa_work;
 
 	/* New address space, reset the preferred nid */
 	if (!(clone_flags & CLONE_VM)) {
diff --git a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
index 96b4e7810426..3352759e6916 100644
--- a/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
+++ b/kernel/time/posix-cpu-timers.c
@@ -1167,8 +1167,6 @@ void clear_posix_cputimers_work(struct task_struct *p)
 	 * A copied work entry from the old task is not meaningful, clear it.
 	 * N.B. init_task_work will not do this.
 	 */
-	memset(&p->posix_cputimers_work.work, 0,
-	       sizeof(p->posix_cputimers_work.work));
 	init_task_work(&p->posix_cputimers_work.work,
 		       posix_cpu_timers_work);
 	p->posix_cputimers_work.scheduled = false;