lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [v2 PATCH] mm: introduce arg_lock to protect arg_start|end and env_start|end in mm_struct
From
Date
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 06:10:09AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > On 2018/03/27 4:21, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > > That said I think using read-lock here would be a bug.
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the caller can't set both fields atomically, for
> > prctl() does not receive both fields at one call.
> >
> > prctl(PR_SET_MM, PR_SET_MM_ARG_START xor PR_SET_MM_ARG_END xor PR_SET_MM_ENV_START xor PR_SET_MM_ENV_END, new value, 0, 0);
> >
>
> True, but the key moment is that two/three/four system calls can
> run simultaneously. And while previously they are ordered by "write",
> with read lock they are completely unordered and this is really
> worries me.

Yes, we need exclusive lock when updating these fields.

> To be fair I would prefer to drop this old per-field
> interface completely. This per-field interface was rather an ugly
> solution from my side.

But this is userspace visible API and thus we cannot change.

>
> > Then, I wonder whether reading arg_start|end and env_start|end atomically makes
> > sense. Just retry reading if arg_start > env_end or env_start > env_end is fine?
>
> Tetsuo, let me re-read this code tomorrow, maybe I miss something obvious.
>

You are not missing my point. What I thought is

+retry:
- down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
arg_start = mm->arg_start;
arg_end = mm->arg_end;
env_start = mm->env_start;
env_end = mm->env_end;
- up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);

- BUG_ON(arg_start > arg_end);
- BUG_ON(env_start > env_end);
+ if (unlikely(arg_start > arg_end || env_start > env_end)) {
+ cond_resched();
+ goto retry;
+ }

for reading these fields.

By the way, /proc/pid/ readers are serving as a canary who tells something
mm_mmap related problem is happening. On the other hand, it is sad that
such canary cannot be terminated by signal due to use of unkillable waits.
I wish we can use killable waits.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-27 00:01    [W:0.077 / U:3.020 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site