All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae@de.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@timesys.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] bug in futex unqueue_me
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:41:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200607271841.56342.borntrae@de.ibm.com> (raw)

From: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae@de.ibm.com>

This patch adds a barrier() in futex unqueue_me to avoid aliasing of two 
pointers.

On my s390x system I saw the following oops:

Unable to handle kernel pointer dereference at virtual kernel address 
0000000000000000
Oops: 0004 [#1]
CPU:    0    Not tainted
Process mytool (pid: 13613, task: 000000003ecb6ac0, ksp: 00000000366bdbd8)
Krnl PSW : 0704d00180000000 00000000003c9ac2 (_spin_lock+0xe/0x30)
Krnl GPRS: 00000000ffffffff 000000003ecb6ac0 0000000000000000 0700000000000000
           0000000000000000 0000000000000000 000001fe00002028 00000000000c091f
           000001fe00002054 000001fe00002054 0000000000000000 00000000366bddc0
           00000000005ef8c0 00000000003d00e8 0000000000144f91 00000000366bdcb8
Krnl Code: ba 4e 20 00 12 44 b9 16 00 3e a7 84 00 08 e3 e0 f0 88 00 04
Call Trace:
([<0000000000144f90>] unqueue_me+0x40/0xe4)
 [<0000000000145a0c>] do_futex+0x33c/0xc40
 [<000000000014643e>] sys_futex+0x12e/0x144
 [<000000000010bb00>] sysc_noemu+0x10/0x16
 [<000002000003741c>] 0x2000003741c



The code in question is:

static int unqueue_me(struct futex_q *q)
{
        int ret = 0;
        spinlock_t *lock_ptr;

        /* In the common case we don't take the spinlock, which is nice. */
 retry:
        lock_ptr = q->lock_ptr;
        if (lock_ptr != 0) {
                spin_lock(lock_ptr);                
		/*
                 * q->lock_ptr can change between reading it and
                 * spin_lock(), causing us to take the wrong lock.  This
                 * corrects the race condition.
[...]


and my compiler (gcc 4.1.0) makes the following out of it:

00000000000003c8 <unqueue_me>:
     3c8:       eb bf f0 70 00 24       stmg    %r11,%r15,112(%r15)
     3ce:       c0 d0 00 00 00 00       larl    %r13,3ce <unqueue_me+0x6>
                        3d0: R_390_PC32DBL      .rodata+0x2a
     3d4:       a7 f1 1e 00             tml     %r15,7680
     3d8:       a7 84 00 01             je      3da <unqueue_me+0x12>
     3dc:       b9 04 00 ef             lgr     %r14,%r15
     3e0:       a7 fb ff d0             aghi    %r15,-48
     3e4:       b9 04 00 b2             lgr     %r11,%r2
     3e8:       e3 e0 f0 98 00 24       stg     %r14,152(%r15)
     3ee:       e3 c0 b0 28 00 04       lg      %r12,40(%r11) 
		/* write q->lock_ptr in r12 */
     3f4:       b9 02 00 cc             ltgr    %r12,%r12
     3f8:       a7 84 00 4b             je      48e <unqueue_me+0xc6>
		/* if r12 is zero then jump over the code.... */
     3fc:       e3 20 b0 28 00 04       lg      %r2,40(%r11)
		/* write q->lock_ptr in r2 */
     402:       c0 e5 00 00 00 00       brasl   %r14,402 <unqueue_me+0x3a>
                        404: R_390_PC32DBL      _spin_lock+0x2
		/* use r2 as parameter for spin_lock */

So the code becomes more or less:
if (q->lock_ptr != 0) spin_lock(q->lock_ptr)
instead of
if (lock_ptr != 0) spin_lock(lock_ptr)

Which caused the oops from above.
After adding a barrier gcc creates code without this problem:
[...] (the same)
     3ee:       e3 c0 b0 28 00 04       lg      %r12,40(%r11)
     3f4:       b9 02 00 cc             ltgr    %r12,%r12
     3f8:       b9 04 00 2c             lgr     %r2,%r12
     3fc:       a7 84 00 48             je      48c <unqueue_me+0xc4>
     400:       c0 e5 00 00 00 00       brasl   %r14,400 <unqueue_me+0x38>
                        402: R_390_PC32DBL      _spin_lock+0x2



As a general note, this code of unqueue_me seems a bit fishy. The retry logic 
of unqueue_me only works if we can guarantee, that the original value of 
q->lock_ptr is always a spinlock (Otherwise we overwrite kernel memory). We 
know that q->lock_ptr can change. I dont know what happens with the original 
spinlock, as I am not an expert with the futex code. 

CC: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@timesys.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae@de.ibm.com>
---
 
futex.c |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

---
diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index cf0c8e2..01aa87c 100644
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -930,6 +930,7 @@ static int unqueue_me(struct futex_q *q)
 	/* In the common case we don't take the spinlock, which is nice. */
  retry:
 	lock_ptr = q->lock_ptr;
+	barrier();
 	if (lock_ptr != 0) {
 		spin_lock(lock_ptr);
 		/*




-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards

Christian Borntraeger
Linux Software Engineer zSeries Linux & Virtualization




             reply	other threads:[~2006-07-27 16:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-07-27 16:41 Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2006-07-30  6:38 ` [PATCH] bug in futex unqueue_me Ingo Molnar
2006-07-30 23:53   ` Steven Rostedt
2006-07-31  8:04   ` Christian Borntraeger
2006-07-31 11:49     ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200607271841.56342.borntrae@de.ibm.com \
    --to=borntrae@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=tglx@timesys.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.