netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time

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: <20120516223715.5d1b4385.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2012 22:37:15 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<devel@...nvz.org>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] decrement static keys on real destroy time

On Thu, 17 May 2012 07:06:52 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:

> ...
> >> +	else if (val != RESOURCE_MAX) {
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * ->activated needs to be written after the static_key update.
> >> +		 *  This is what guarantees that the socket activation function
> >> +		 *  is the last one to run. See sock_update_memcg() for details,
> >> +		 *  and note that we don't mark any socket as belonging to this
> >> +		 *  memcg until that flag is up.
> >> +		 *
> >> +		 *  We need to do this, because static_keys will span multiple
> >> +		 *  sites, but we can't control their order. If we mark a socket
> >> +		 *  as accounted, but the accounting functions are not patched in
> >> +		 *  yet, we'll lose accounting.
> >> +		 *
> >> +		 *  We never race with the readers in sock_update_memcg(), because
> >> +		 *  when this value change, the code to process it is not patched in
> >> +		 *  yet.
> >> +		 */
> >> +		if (!cg_proto->activated) {
> >> +			static_key_slow_inc(&memcg_socket_limit_enabled);
> >> +			cg_proto->activated = true;
> >> +		}
> >
> > If two threads run this code concurrently, they can both see
> > cg_proto->activated==false and they will both run
> > static_key_slow_inc().
> >
> > Hopefully there's some locking somewhere which prevents this, but it is
> > unobvious.  We should comment this, probably at the cg_proto.activated
> > definition site.  Or we should fix the bug ;)
> >
> If that happens, locking in static_key_slow_inc will prevent any damage.
> My previous version had explicit code to prevent that, but we were 
> pointed out that this is already part of the static_key expectations, so 
> that was dropped.

This makes no sense.  If two threads run that code concurrently,
key->enabled gets incremented twice.  Nobody anywhere has a record that
this happened so it cannot be undone.  key->enabled is now in an
unknown state.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html