linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] percpu_ref: call wake_up_all() after percpu_ref

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: <Yk/OtIKckFprZrGx@fedora>
Date:   Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:57:08 -0700
From:   Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
To:     Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, tj@...nel.org,
        cl@...ux.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        zhouchengming@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_ref: call wake_up_all() after percpu_ref_put()
 completes

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 12:14:54PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2022/4/8 12:10 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:06:20 +0800 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Are any users affected by this?  If so, I think a Fixes tag
> > > > > > is necessary.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Looks all current users(blk_pre_runtime_suspend() and set_in_sync()) are
> > > > > affected by this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I see that this patch has been merged into the mm tree, can Andrew help
> > > > > me add the following Fixes tag?
> > > > 
> > > > Andrew is helpful ;)
> > > > 
> > > > Do you see reasons why we should backport this into -stable trees?
> > > > It's 8 years old, so my uninformed guess is "no"?
> > > 
> > > Hmm, although the commit 490c79a65708 add wake_up_all(), it is no
> > > problem for the usage at that time, maybe the correct Fixes tag is the
> > > following:
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 210f7cdcf088 ("percpu-refcount: support synchronous switch to
> > > atomic mode.")
> > > 
> > > But in fact, there is no problem with it, but all current users expect
> > > the refcount is stable after percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync() returns.
> > > 
> > > I have no idea as which Fixes tag to add.
> > 
> > Well the solution to that problem is to add cc:stable and let Greg
> > figure it out ;)
> > 
> > The more serious question is "should we backport this".  What is the
> > end-user-visible impact of the bug?  Do our users need the fix or not?
> 
> The impact on the current user is that it is possible to miss an opportunity
> to reach 0 due to the case B in the commit message:
> 

Did you find this bug through code inspection or was the finding
motivated by a production incident?

The usage in block/blk-pm.c looks problematic, but I'm guessing this is
a really, really hard bug to trigger. You need to have the wake up be
faster than an atomic decrement. The q_usage_counter allows reinit so it
skips the __percpu_ref_exit() call.

Thanks,
Dennis