Re: [PATCH v2] ipc: introduce ipc_valid_object() helper to sort out IPC_RMID races

[Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 07:46:27AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 10:51 -0200, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:11:29PM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > > On 12/18/2013 12:28 AM, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> > > >After the locking semantics for the SysV IPC API got improved, a couple of
> > > >IPC_RMID race windows were opened because we ended up dropping the
> > > >'kern_ipc_perm.deleted' check performed way down in ipc_lock().
> > > >The spotted races got sorted out by re-introducing the old test within
> > > >the racy critical sections.
> > > >
> > > >This patch introduces ipc_valid_object() to consolidate the way we cope with
> > > >IPC_RMID races by using the same abstraction across the API implementation.
> > > >
> > > >Signed-off-by: Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>
> > > >Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> > > >Acked-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
> > > >---
> > > >Changelog:
> > > >* v2:
> > > >  - drop assert_spin_locked() from ipc_valid_object() for less overhead
> > > a) sysv ipc is lockless whereever possible, without writing to any
> > > shared cachelines.
> > > Therefore my first reaction was: No, please leave the assert in. It
> > > will help us to catch bugs.
> > > 
> > > b) then I noticed: the assert would be a bug, the comment in front
> > > of ipc_valid_object() that the caller must hold _perm.lock is wrong:
> > > >@@ -1846,7 +1846,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops,
> > > >  	error = -EIDRM;
> > > >  	locknum = sem_lock(sma, sops, nsops);
> > > >-	if (sma->sem_perm.deleted)
> > > >+	if (!ipc_valid_object(&sma->sem_perm))
> > > >  		goto out_unlock_free;
> > > simple semtimedop() operation do not acquire sem_perm.lock, they
> > > only acquire the per-semaphore lock and check that sem_perm.lock is
> > > not held. This is sufficient to prevent races with RMID.
> > > 
> > > Could you update the comment?
> > 
> > The comment for ipc_valid_object() is not entirely wrong, as holding the spinlock 
> > is clearly necessary for all cases except for this one you pointed above. 
> > When I dropped the assert as Davilohr suggested, I then could have this one exception 
> > case (where the check can, eventually, be done lockless) converted too, but I did not include 
> > an exception comment at that particular checkpoint. Perhaps, that's what I should have done, or
> > perhaps the best thing is to just let all that as is sits right now.
> 
> Yeah, Manfred is entirely correct - I didn't mention that sem_lock()
> tries to be fine grained about its locking, so semaphores can in fact
> not take the larger ipc lock (kern perm), but just the sem->lock
> instead. This means that ipc_valid_object() must be called either way
> with some lock held, but that assertion is indeed incorrect, not just
> redundant like I suggested before. So, I think that if you update the
> comment mentioning this corner case, then it should be ok.
>

Cool, will do it, then. But I'll do it just above the exception case, in sem.c
to not cause more confusion. Does it sounds good to all?

Thanks, folks!
-- Rafael