linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Prevent non-first waiter from spinning in down

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: <68a994ae-caaf-a68a-c2b7-fc69baed57bb@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 09:57:15 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.p.donnelly@...cle.com,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Prevent non-first waiter from spinning in
 down_write() slowpath

On 9/30/22 00:46, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for looking into this issue.
>
> On 9/29/2022 11:34 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> A non-first waiter can potentially spin in the for loop of
>> rwsem_down_write_slowpath() without sleeping but fail to acquire the
>> lock even if the rwsem is free if the following sequence happens:
>>
>>    Non-first waiter       First waiter      Lock holder
>>    ----------------       ------------      -----------
>>    Acquire wait_lock
>>    rwsem_try_write_lock():
>>      Set handoff bit if RT or
>>        wait too long
>>      Set waiter->handoff_set
>>    Release wait_lock
>>                           Acquire wait_lock
>>                           Inherit waiter->handoff_set
>>                           Release wait_lock
>>                        Clear owner
>>                                             Release lock
>>    if (waiter.handoff_set) {
>>      rwsem_spin_on_owner(();
>>      if (OWNER_NULL)
>>        goto trylock_again;
>>    }
>>    trylock_again:
>>    Acquire wait_lock
>>    rwsem_try_write_lock():
>>       if (first->handoff_set && (waiter != first))
>>           return false;
>>    Release wait_lock
>>
>> It is especially problematic if the non-first waiter is an RT task and
>> it is running on the same CPU as the first waiter as this can lead to
>> live lock.
>>
>> Fixes: d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more 
>> consistent")
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> index 65f0262f635e..ad676e99e0b3 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> @@ -628,6 +628,11 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct 
>> rw_semaphore *sem,
>>           new = count;
>>             if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
>> +            /*
>> +             * A waiter (first or not) can set the handoff bit
>> +             * if it is an RT task or wait in the wait queue
>> +             * for too long.
>> +             */
>>               if (has_handoff || (!rt_task(waiter->task) &&
>>                           !time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)))
>>                   return false;
>> @@ -643,11 +648,13 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct 
>> rw_semaphore *sem,
>>       } while (!atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &count, 
>> new));
>>         /*
>> -     * We have either acquired the lock with handoff bit cleared or
>> -     * set the handoff bit.
>> +     * We have either acquired the lock with handoff bit cleared or set
>> +     * the handoff bit. Only the first waiter can have its handoff_set
>> +     * set here to enable optimistic spinning in slowpath loop.
>>        */
>>       if (new & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) {
>> -        waiter->handoff_set = true;
>> +        if (waiter == first)
>> +            waiter->handoff_set = true;
>>           lockevent_inc(rwsem_wlock_handoff);
>
> nit: Should this not get incremented on waiter->handoff_set=true only ?

The lock event counter records the # of time a handoff bit is set. It is 
not related to how the handoff_set in the waiter structure is being set.

cheers,
Longman