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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2023 21:40:23 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather
 than read_seqbegin_or_lock()

In case I was not clear, I am not saying this code is buggy.

Just none of read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry/done_seqretry
helpers make any sense in this code. It can use read_seqbegin/
read_seqretry and this won't change the current behaviour.

On 11/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 11/01, David Howells wrote:
> >
> > Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > read_seqbegin_or_lock() makes no sense unless you make "seq" odd
> > > after the lockless access failed.
> >
> > I think you're wrong.
>
> I think you missed the point ;)
>
> > write_seqlock() turns it odd.
>
> It changes seqcount_t->sequence but not "seq" so this doesn't matter.
>
> > For instance, if the read lock is taken first:
> >
> > 	sequence seq	CPU 1				CPU 2
> > 	======= =======	===============================	===============
> > 	0
> > 	0	0	seq = 0  MUST BE EVEN
>
> This is correct,
>
> > ACCORDING TO DOC
>
> documentation is wrong, please see
>
> 	[PATCH 1/2] seqlock: fix the wrong read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry documentation
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231024120808.GA15382@redhat.com/
>
> > 	0	0	read_seqbegin_or_lock() [lockless]
> > 			...
> > 	1	0					write_seqlock()
> > 	1	0	need_seqretry() [seq=even; sequence!=seq: retry]
>
> Yes, if CPU_1 races with write_seqlock() need_seqretry() returns true,
>
> > 	1	1	read_seqbegin_or_lock() [exclusive]
>
> No. "seq" is still even, so read_seqbegin_or_lock() won't do read_seqlock_excl(),
> it will do
>
> 	seq = read_seqbegin(lock);
>
> again.
>
> > Note that it spins in __read_seqcount_begin() until we get an even seq,
> > indicating that no write is currently in progress - at which point we can
> > perform a lockless pass.
>
> Exactly. And this means that "seq" is always even.
>
> > > See thread_group_cputime() as an example, note that it does nextseq = 1 for
> > > the 2nd round.
> >
> > That's not especially convincing.
>
> See also the usage of read_seqbegin_or_lock() in fs/dcache.c and fs/d_path.c.
> All other users are wrong.
>
> Lets start from the very beginning. This code does
>
>         int seq = 0;
>         do {
>                 read_seqbegin_or_lock(service_conn_lock, &seq);
>
>                 do_something();
>
>         } while (need_seqretry(service_conn_lock, seq));
>
>         done_seqretry(service_conn_lock, seq);
>
> Initially seq is even (it is zero), so read_seqbegin_or_lock(&seq) does
>
> 	*seq = read_seqbegin(lock);
>
> and returns. Note that "seq" is still even.
>
> Now. If need_seqretry(seq) detects the race with write_seqlock() it returns
> true but it does NOT change this "seq", it is still even. So on the next
> iteration read_seqbegin_or_lock() will do
>
> 	*seq = read_seqbegin(lock);
>
> again, it won't take this lock for writing. And again, seq will be even.
> And so on.
>
> And this means that the code above is equivalent to
>
> 	do {
> 		seq = read_seqbegin(service_conn_lock);
>
> 		do_something();
>
> 	} while (read_seqretry(service_conn_lock, seq));
>
> and this is what this patch does.
>
> Yes this is confusing. Again, even the documentation is wrong! That is why
> I am trying to remove the misuse of read_seqbegin_or_lock(), then I am going
> to change the semantics of need_seqretry() to enforce the locking on the 2nd
> pass.
>
> Oleg.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists