linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] rust: sync: add `CondVar::wait

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: <CAH5fLghmG4e0RjVdPuyWYgCt2cQ9+_WRP81tGxS4qyL91vHiEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 14:49:54 +0100
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, 
	Tiago Lam <tiagolam@...il.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] rust: sync: add `CondVar::wait_timeout`

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:54 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:31:05AM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> > On 12/16/23 16:31, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > @@ -102,7 +105,12 @@ pub fn new(name: &'static CStr, key: &'static LockClassKey) -> impl PinInit<Self
> > >          })
> > >      }
> > >
> > > -    fn wait_internal<T: ?Sized, B: Backend>(&self, wait_state: u32, guard: &mut Guard<'_, T, B>) {
> > > +    fn wait_internal<T: ?Sized, B: Backend>(
> > > +        &self,
> > > +        wait_state: u32,
> > > +        guard: &mut Guard<'_, T, B>,
> > > +        timeout: c_long,
> > > +    ) -> c_long {
> > >          let wait = Opaque::<bindings::wait_queue_entry>::uninit();
> > >
> > >          // SAFETY: `wait` points to valid memory.
> > > @@ -113,11 +121,13 @@ fn wait_internal<T: ?Sized, B: Backend>(&self, wait_state: u32, guard: &mut Guar
> > >              bindings::prepare_to_wait_exclusive(self.wait_list.get(), wait.get(), wait_state as _)
> > >          };
> > >
> > > -        // SAFETY: No arguments, switches to another thread.
> > > -        guard.do_unlocked(|| unsafe { bindings::schedule() });
> > > +        // SAFETY: Switches to another thread. The timeout can be any number.
> > > +        let ret = guard.do_unlocked(|| unsafe { bindings::schedule_timeout(timeout) });
> >
> > I am not sure what exactly the safety requirements of `schedule_timeout`
> > are. I looked at the function and saw that the timout should not be
> > negative. But aside from that only the the context switching should be
> > relevant. What things are not allowed to do when calling `schedule`
> > (aside from the stuff that klint catches)?
>
> One thing is that you probably don't want to call `schedule` with task
> state being TASK_DEAD, if so the `schedule` would be counted as
> `ARef<Task>::drop()`, see __schedule() -> context_switch() ->
> finish_context_switch(), and the task may be freed after that, which
> free the stack of the task, and anything that references a object on the
> stack would be a UAF. On the other hand, if the task state is not
> TASK_DEAD, `schedule*()` should be a no-op regarding memory safety.
>
> > Because if there are none, then I would put the "switches to another
> > thread" part into a normal comment.
> >
>
> I think it's possible to make schedule_timeout() a safe function: we can
> define setting task state TASK_DEAD as an unsafe operation, whose safety
> requirement is something like: "Must ensure that if some code can
> reference a memory object that belongs to the task (e.g. a stack
> variable) after the task calls a followed `schedule()`, the code must
> also hold an additional reference count to the task."
>
> Yes, it might be out of the scope of this patchset though.

These things sound like they are out of scope of this patchset.
Changing it from schedule to schedule_timeout doesn't change whether
this is ok or not.

Alice