linux-kernel - [for-linus][PATCH 2/5] ring-buffer: Fix full_waiters

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: <20240312222223.334655261@goodmis.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 18:21:01 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [for-linus][PATCH 2/5] ring-buffer: Fix full_waiters_pending in poll

From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>

If a reader of the ring buffer is doing a poll, and waiting for the ring
buffer to hit a specific watermark, there could be a case where it gets
into an infinite ping-pong loop.

The poll code has:

  rbwork->full_waiters_pending = true;
  if (!cpu_buffer->shortest_full ||
      cpu_buffer->shortest_full > full)
         cpu_buffer->shortest_full = full;

The writer will see full_waiters_pending and check if the ring buffer is
filled over the percentage of the shortest_full value. If it is, it calls
an irq_work to wake up all the waiters.

But the code could get into a circular loop:

	CPU 0					CPU 1
	-----					-----
 [ Poll ]
   [ shortest_full = 0 ]
   rbwork->full_waiters_pending = true;
					  if (rbwork->full_waiters_pending &&
					      [ buffer percent ] > shortest_full) {
					         rbwork->wakeup_full = true;
					         [ queue_irqwork ]

   cpu_buffer->shortest_full = full;

					  [ IRQ work ]
					  if (rbwork->wakeup_full) {
					        cpu_buffer->shortest_full = 0;
					        wakeup poll waiters;
  [woken]
   if ([ buffer percent ] > full)
      break;
   rbwork->full_waiters_pending = true;
					  if (rbwork->full_waiters_pending &&
					      [ buffer percent ] > shortest_full) {
					         rbwork->wakeup_full = true;
					         [ queue_irqwork ]

   cpu_buffer->shortest_full = full;

					  [ IRQ work ]
					  if (rbwork->wakeup_full) {
					        cpu_buffer->shortest_full = 0;
					        wakeup poll waiters;
  [woken]

 [ Wash, rinse, repeat! ]

In the poll, the shortest_full needs to be set before the
full_pending_waiters, as once that is set, the writer will compare the
current shortest_full (which is incorrect) to decide to call the irq_work,
which will reset the shortest_full (expecting the readers to update it).

Also move the setting of full_waiters_pending after the check if the ring
buffer has the required percentage filled. There's no reason to tell the
writer to wake up waiters if there are no waiters.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-kernel/20240312131952.630922155@goodmis.org

Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Fixes: 42fb0a1e84ff5 ("tracing/ring-buffer: Have polling block on watermark")
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
---
 kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
index 6ffbccb9bcf0..99fdda29ce4e 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
@@ -965,16 +965,32 @@ __poll_t ring_buffer_poll_wait(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu,
 		poll_wait(filp, &rbwork->full_waiters, poll_table);
 
 		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cpu_buffer->reader_lock, flags);
-		rbwork->full_waiters_pending = true;
 		if (!cpu_buffer->shortest_full ||
 		    cpu_buffer->shortest_full > full)
 			cpu_buffer->shortest_full = full;
 		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpu_buffer->reader_lock, flags);
-	} else {
-		poll_wait(filp, &rbwork->waiters, poll_table);
-		rbwork->waiters_pending = true;
+		if (full_hit(buffer, cpu, full))
+			return EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
+		/*
+		 * Only allow full_waiters_pending update to be seen after
+		 * the shortest_full is set. If the writer sees the
+		 * full_waiters_pending flag set, it will compare the
+		 * amount in the ring buffer to shortest_full. If the amount
+		 * in the ring buffer is greater than the shortest_full
+		 * percent, it will call the irq_work handler to wake up
+		 * this list. The irq_handler will reset shortest_full
+		 * back to zero. That's done under the reader_lock, but
+		 * the below smp_mb() makes sure that the update to
+		 * full_waiters_pending doesn't leak up into the above.
+		 */
+		smp_mb();
+		rbwork->full_waiters_pending = true;
+		return 0;
 	}
 
+	poll_wait(filp, &rbwork->waiters, poll_table);
+	rbwork->waiters_pending = true;
+
 	/*
 	 * There's a tight race between setting the waiters_pending and
 	 * checking if the ring buffer is empty.  Once the waiters_pending bit
@@ -990,9 +1006,6 @@ __poll_t ring_buffer_poll_wait(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu,
 	 */
 	smp_mb();
 
-	if (full)
-		return full_hit(buffer, cpu, full) ? EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM : 0;
-
 	if ((cpu == RING_BUFFER_ALL_CPUS && !ring_buffer_empty(buffer)) ||
 	    (cpu != RING_BUFFER_ALL_CPUS && !ring_buffer_empty_cpu(buffer, cpu)))
 		return EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
-- 
2.43.0