Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Jun 2014 15:01:38 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand unprotected when accessed by /proc) |
| |
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 05:52:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:37:26AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > That would indeed be a bad thing, as it could potentially lead to > > > use-after-free bugs. Though one could argue that any code that resulted > > > in use-after-free would be quite aggressive. But still... > > > > Let me hijack this thread for yet another issue... So I had an RCU > > related use-after-free the other day, and while Sasha was able to > > trigger it quite easily, I had a multi-day struggle to reproduce. > > > > Once I figured out what the exact problem was it was also clear to me > > why it was so hard for me to reproduce. > > > > So normally its easier to trigger races on bigger machines, more cpus, > > more concurrency, more races, all good. > > > > _However_ with RCU the grace period machinery is slower the bigger the > > machine, so bigger machine, slower grace period, slower RCU free, less > > likely to hit use-after-free. > > > > So I was thinking, and I know you all will go kick me for this because > > the very last thing we need is what I'm about to propose: more RCU > > flavours :-). > > > > How about an rcu_read_unlock() reference counted RCU variant that's > > ultra aggressive in doing the callbacks in order to better trigger such > > issues? > > If you are using synchronize_rcu() for the update side, then I suggest > rcutorture.gp_exp=1 to force use expediting throughout.
No such luck, this was regular kfree() from call_rcu(). And the callback execution was typically delayed long enough to never 'see' the use-after-free. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |