lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
SubjectPROBLEM: Concurrency issue in sem_lock
Date
Hi all,

I have just reported a concurrency issue in the implementation of
sem_lock, see https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105651

Please set me to CC for answers/comments.


[1.] One line summary of the problem:

Concurrency issue in sem_lock

[2.] Full description of the problem/report:

In line 376 (file ipc/sem.c) sem_wait_array is called with pre condition
sma->complex_count!=0 resulting in an immediate return.

The following scenario is possible, allowing P0 and P1 to be in the
critical section (section between sem_lock und sem_unlock) at the same time:

P0 is a process performing up with semtimedop on single semaphore 1.
P1 is a process performing up with semtimedop on single semaphore 1.
P2 is a process performing down with semtimedop on semaphores 1 and 2.

start condition:

sma->complex_count=0

All line references apply to the file ipc/sem.c.

# P0 runs sem_lock up to line 332: if(sma->complex_count==0) evaluates
to true

static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
int nsops)
{
struct sem *sem;

if (nsops != 1) {
...
}
sem = sma->sem_base + sops->sem_num;

if (sma->complex_count == 0) {

# P1 runs sem_lock up to line 329.

static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
int nsops)
{
struct sem *sem;

if (nsops != 1) {
...
}

sem = sma->sem_base + sops->sem_num;

# P2 runs sem_lock to (including) line 310.

static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
int nsops)
{
struct sem *sem;

if (nsops != 1) {
ipc_lock_object(&sma->sem_perm);

sem_wait_array(sma);

# P0 does spin_lock(&sem->lock); in line 336.

spin_lock(&sem->lock);

# P2 performs rest of semtimedop, increments complex_count and ends up
in line 1961 and starts to sleep.

return -1;
}

##semtimedop:
locknum = sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);

...

error = perform_atomic_semop(sma, &queue);
if (error == 0) {
...
}
if (error <= 0)
...

if (nsops == 1) {
...
} else {
if (!sma->complex_count)
merge_queues(sma);

if (alter)
list_add_tail(&queue.list, &sma->pending_alter);
else
list_add_tail(&queue.list, &sma->pending_const);

sma->complex_count++;
}

queue.status = -EINTR;
queue.sleeper = current;

sleep_again:
__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
sem_unlock(sma, locknum);
rcu_read_unlock();

if (timeout)
jiffies_left = schedule_timeout(jiffies_left);
else
schedule();

# P1 evaluates if(sem->complex_count==0) in line 331 and ends up in line
361.

if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
...
}

# P0 evaluates if(!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) in line 339 and
ends up after line 346.

if (!spin_is_locked(&sma->sem_perm.lock)) {
ipc_smp_acquire__after_spin_is_unlocked();


# P1 performs ipc_lock_object(&sma->sem_perm); line 362; it then
evaluates if(sma->complex_count==0) and executes the else statement,
calls sem_wait_array in line 376, which returns erroneously.

ipc_lock_object(&sma->sem_perm);

if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
...
} else {
sem_wait_array(sma);

static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array*sma)
{
int i;
struct sem *sem;

if (sma->complex_count) {
return;
}

return -1;
}

# P1 runs the rest of semtimedop and wakes P2 up in do_smart_update
(line 1911), update_queue and unlink_queue respectively. This reduces
complex_count.

locknum = sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
...
...
error = perform_atomic_semop(sma, &queue);
if (error == 0) {
if (alter)
do_smart_update(sma, sops, nsops, 1, &tasks);

# P0 now evaluates if(sma->complex_count==0) in line 353 and is able to
enter the critical section, while P1 is still in do_smart_update().

if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
/* fast path successful! */
return sops->sem_num;
}


Thanks to Manfred Spraul for his comments on the problem description.


[3.] Keywords (i.e., modules, networking, kernel):
IPC, sem_lock
[4.] Kernel information
[4.1.] Kernel version (from /proc/version):
4.3.0-rc4

[5.] Most recent kernel version which did not have the bug:
According to Manfred, the attached patch, causing the bug, was first
added in version 3.12 and then backported.

[X.] Patch causing the bug:


From f5346dce3b37c00f9b6e22bee35d22783d11de7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 21:45:57 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ipc/sem.c: optimize sem_lock().

Operations that need access to the whole array must guarantee that there are
no simple operations ongoing. Right now this is achieved by
spin_unlock_wait(sem->lock) on all semaphores.

If complex_count is nonzero, then this spin_unlock_wait() is not necessary,
because it was already performed in the past by the thread that increased
complex_count and even though sem_perm.lock was dropped inbetween, no simple
operation could have started, because simple operations cannot start when
complex_count is non-zero.

Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
---
ipc/sem.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index 4a92c04..e20658d 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -257,12 +257,20 @@ static void sem_rcu_free(struct rcu_head *head)
* Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
* New simple ops cannot start, because simple ops first check
* that sem_perm.lock is free.
+ * that a) sem_perm.lock is free and b) complex_count is 0.
*/
static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array *sma)
{
int i;
struct sem *sem;

+ if (sma->complex_count) {
+ /* The thread that increased sma->complex_count waited on
+ * all sem->lock locks. Thus we don't need to wait again.
+ */
+ return;
+ }
+
for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
sem = sma->sem_base + i;
spin_unlock_wait(&sem->lock);
--
1.8.3.1



Best regards,

Felix Hübner


--
Felix Hübner

Arbeitsgruppe Betriebssysteme, Verteilte Systeme
(Research Group Operating Systems, Distributed Systems)
FB3 Mathematik und Informatik
(Department of Mathematics and Computer Science)

Universität Bremen

ROOM: MZH 8200
MAIL: felixh@informatik.uni-bremen.de
TEL : +49 (0)421 / 218 63966
WEB : http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/agbs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-09 10:41    [W:0.672 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site