lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v6] taskstats: fix data-race
    On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:04:18PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
    > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 02:19:01PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
    > > On 21/10/2019 13.33, Christian Brauner wrote:
    > > > The first approach used smp_load_acquire() and smp_store_release().
    > > > However, after having discussed this it seems that the data dependency
    > > > for kmem_cache_alloc() would be fixed by WRITE_ONCE().
    > > > Furthermore, the smp_load_acquire() would only manage to order the stats
    > > > check before the thread_group_empty() check. So it seems just using
    > > > READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() will do the job and I wanted to bring this
    > > > up for discussion at least.
    > > >
    > > > /* v6 */
    > > > - Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>:
    > > > - bring up READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() approach for discussion
    > > > ---
    > > > kernel/taskstats.c | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
    > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
    > > >
    > > > diff --git a/kernel/taskstats.c b/kernel/taskstats.c
    > > > index 13a0f2e6ebc2..111bb4139aa2 100644
    > > > --- a/kernel/taskstats.c
    > > > +++ b/kernel/taskstats.c
    > > > @@ -554,25 +554,29 @@ static int taskstats_user_cmd(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
    > > > static struct taskstats *taskstats_tgid_alloc(struct task_struct *tsk)
    > > > {
    > > > struct signal_struct *sig = tsk->signal;
    > > > - struct taskstats *stats;
    > > > + struct taskstats *stats_new, *stats;
    > > >
    > > > - if (sig->stats || thread_group_empty(tsk))
    > > > - goto ret;
    > > > + /* Pairs with WRITE_ONCE() below. */
    > > > + stats = READ_ONCE(sig->stats);
    > > > + if (stats || thread_group_empty(tsk))
    > > > + return stats;
    > > >
    > > > /* No problem if kmem_cache_zalloc() fails */
    > > > - stats = kmem_cache_zalloc(taskstats_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
    > > > + stats_new = kmem_cache_zalloc(taskstats_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
    > > >
    > > > spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
    > > > - if (!sig->stats) {
    > > > - sig->stats = stats;
    > > > - stats = NULL;
    > > > + if (!stats) {
    > > > + stats = stats_new;
    > > > + /* Pairs with READ_ONCE() above. */
    > > > + WRITE_ONCE(sig->stats, stats_new);
    > > > + stats_new = NULL;
    > >
    > > No idea about the memory ordering issues, but don't you need to
    > > load/check sig->stats again? Otherwise it seems that two threads might
    > > both see !sig->stats, both allocate a stats_new, and both
    > > unconditionally in turn assign their stats_new to sig->stats. Then the
    > > first assignment ends up becoming a memory leak (and any writes through
    > > that pointer done by the caller end up in /dev/null...)
    >
    > Trigger hand too fast. I guess you're thinking sm like:
    >
    > diff --git a/kernel/taskstats.c b/kernel/taskstats.c
    > index 13a0f2e6ebc2..c4e1ed11e785 100644
    > --- a/kernel/taskstats.c
    > +++ b/kernel/taskstats.c
    > @@ -554,25 +554,27 @@ static int taskstats_user_cmd(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
    > static struct taskstats *taskstats_tgid_alloc(struct task_struct *tsk)
    > {
    > struct signal_struct *sig = tsk->signal;
    > - struct taskstats *stats;
    > + struct taskstats *stats_new, *stats;
    >
    > - if (sig->stats || thread_group_empty(tsk))
    > - goto ret;
    > + stats = READ_ONCE(sig->stats);

    This probably wants to be an acquire, since both the memcpy() later on
    in taskstats_exit() and the accesses in {b,x}acct_add_tsk() appear to
    read from the taskstats structure without the sighand->siglock held and
    therefore may miss zeroed allocation from the zalloc() below, I think.

    > + if (stats || thread_group_empty(tsk))
    > + return stats;
    >
    > - /* No problem if kmem_cache_zalloc() fails */
    > - stats = kmem_cache_zalloc(taskstats_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
    > + stats_new = kmem_cache_zalloc(taskstats_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
    >
    > spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock);
    > - if (!sig->stats) {
    > - sig->stats = stats;
    > - stats = NULL;
    > + stats = READ_ONCE(sig->stats);

    You hold the spinlock here, so I don't think you need the READ_ONCE().

    > + if (!stats) {
    > + stats = stats_new;
    > + WRITE_ONCE(sig->stats, stats_new);

    You probably want a release here to publish the zeroes from the zalloc()
    (back to my first comment). With those changes:

    Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>

    However, this caused me to look at do_group_exit() and we appear to have
    racy accesses on sig->flags there thanks to signal_group_exit(). I worry
    that might run quite deep, and can probably be looked at separately.

    Will

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-11-29 18:56    [W:4.897 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site