Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jun 2021 07:22:10 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] sigqueue cache fix |
| |
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> - Producer <-> consumer: this is the most interesting race, and I think > it's unsafe in theory, because the producer doesn't make sure that any > previous writes to the actual queue entry (struct sigqueue *q) have > reached storage before the new 'free' entry is advertised to consumers. > > So in principle CPU#0 could see a new sigqueue entry and use it, before > it's fully freed. > > In *practice* it's probably safe by accident (or by undocumented > intent), because there's an atomic op we have shortly before putting the > queue entry into the sigqueue_cache, in __sigqueue_free(): > > if (atomic_dec_and_test(&q->user->sigpending)) > free_uid(q->user); > > And atomic_dec_and_test() implies a full barrier - although I haven't > found the place where we document it and > Documentation/memory-ordering.txt is silent on it. We should probably > fix that too. > > At minimum the patch adding the ->sigqueue_cache should include a > well-documented race analysis firmly documenting the implicit barrier after > the atomic_dec_and_test().
I just realized that even with that implicit full barrier it's not safe: the producer uses q->user after the atomic_dec_and_test(). That access is not serialized with the later write to ->sigqueue_cache - and another CPU might see that entry and use the ->sigqueue_cache and corrupt q->user ...
So I think this code might have a real race on LL/SC platforms and we'll need an smp_mb() in sigqueue_cache_or_free()?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |