linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/10] exit: Implement kthread

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: <87a6g3y6kt.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 09:05:22 -0600
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
        Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] exit: Implement kthread_exit

Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> writes:

> On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 12:35:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> There are kernel threads started by modules that do:
>> 	complete(...);
>>         return 0;
>> 
>> That should be at a minimum calling complete_and_exit.  Possibly should
>> be restructured to use kthread_stop().
>> 
>> Some of those users of the now removed thread_exit() in staging are
>> among the offenders.
>> 
>> However thread_exit() was implemented as:
>> 	#define thread_exit() complete_and_exit(NULL, 0)
>> 
>> Which does nothing with a completion, it was just a really funny way to
>> spell "do_exit(0)".
>
> Yes.  And there's a plenty of cargo-culting in that area.
>  
>> While I agree digging through all of the kernel threads and finding the
>> ones that should be calling complete_and_exit is a fine idea.  It is
>> a concern independent of these patches.
>
> BTW, could somebody explain how could this
> /*
>  * Prevent the kthread exits directly, and make sure when kthread_stop()
>  * is called to stop a kthread, it is still alive. If a kthread might be
>  * stopped by CACHE_SET_IO_DISABLE bit set, wait_for_kthread_stop() is
>  * necessary before the kthread returns.
>  */
> static inline void wait_for_kthread_stop(void)
> { 
>         while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>                 set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>                 schedule();
>         }
> } 
>
> in drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h possibly avoid losing wakeups?
>
> AFAICS, it can be called while in TASK_RUNNING.  Suppose kthread_stop()
> gets called just after the check for kthread_should_stop().  Our thread
> is still in TASK_RUNNING; kthread_stop() sets the flag for the next
> kthread_should_stop() to observe and does wake_up_process() to our
> thread.  Which does nothing.  Now our thread goes into TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
> and calls schedule().  Sure, as soon as it gets woken up it'll call
> kthread_should_stop(), get true from it and that's it.  What's going
> to wake it up, though?
>
> The same goes for e.g. fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:cleaner_kthread():
>                 if (kthread_should_stop())
>                         return 0;
>                 if (!again) {
>                         set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>                         schedule();
>                         __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>                 }
> can't be right.  Similar fun exists in e.g. fs/jfs, etc.
>
> Am I missing something?

Those examples look as suspect to me as they do to you.

Eric