This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
sched: fix the theoretical signal_wake_up() vs schedule() race
to the 3.10-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
sched-fix-the-theoretical-signal_wake_up-vs-schedule-race.patch
and it can be found in the queue-3.10 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>From e0acd0a68ec7dbf6b7a81a87a867ebd7ac9b76c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:14:00 +0200
Subject: sched: fix the theoretical signal_wake_up() vs schedule() race
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
commit e0acd0a68ec7dbf6b7a81a87a867ebd7ac9b76c4 upstream.
This is only theoretical, but after try_to_wake_up(p) was changed
to check p->state under p->pi_lock the code like
__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule();
can miss a signal. This is the special case of wait-for-condition,
it relies on try_to_wake_up/schedule interaction and thus it does
not need mb() between __set_current_state() and if(signal_pending).
However, this __set_current_state() can move into the critical
section protected by rq->lock, now that try_to_wake_up() takes
another lock we need to ensure that it can't be reordered with
"if (signal_pending(current))" check inside that section.
The patch is actually one-liner, it simply adds smp_wmb() before
spin_lock_irq(rq->lock). This is what try_to_wake_up() already
does by the same reason.
We turn this wmb() into the new helper, smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
for better documentation and to allow the architectures to change
the default implementation.
While at it, kill smp_mb__after_lock(), it has no callers.
Perhaps we can also add smp_mb__before/after_spinunlock() for
prepare_to_wait().
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h | 4 ----
include/linux/spinlock.h | 14 +++++++++++---
kernel/sched/core.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h
@@ -233,8 +233,4 @@ static inline void arch_write_unlock(arc
#define arch_read_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
#define arch_write_relax(lock) cpu_relax()
-/* The {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are full memory barriers. */
-static inline void smp_mb__after_lock(void) { }
-#define ARCH_HAS_SMP_MB_AFTER_LOCK
-
#endif /* _ASM_X86_SPINLOCK_H */
--- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
@@ -117,9 +117,17 @@ do { \
#endif /*arch_spin_is_contended*/
#endif
-/* The lock does not imply full memory barrier. */
-#ifndef ARCH_HAS_SMP_MB_AFTER_LOCK
-static inline void smp_mb__after_lock(void) { smp_mb(); }
+/*
+ * Despite its name it doesn't necessarily has to be a full barrier.
+ * It should only guarantee that a STORE before the critical section
+ * can not be reordered with a LOAD inside this section.
+ * spin_lock() is the one-way barrier, this LOAD can not escape out
+ * of the region. So the default implementation simply ensures that
+ * a STORE can not move into the critical section, smp_wmb() should
+ * serialize it with another STORE done by spin_lock().
+ */
+#ifndef smp_mb__before_spinlock
+#define smp_mb__before_spinlock() smp_wmb()
#endif
/**
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1487,7 +1487,13 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, un
unsigned long flags;
int cpu, success = 0;
- smp_wmb();
+ /*
+ * If we are going to wake up a thread waiting for CONDITION we
+ * need to ensure that CONDITION=1 done by the caller can not be
+ * reordered with p->state check below. This pairs with mb() in
+ * set_current_state() the waiting thread does.
+ */
+ smp_mb__before_spinlock();
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
if (!(p->state & state))
goto out;
@@ -2966,6 +2972,12 @@ need_resched:
if (sched_feat(HRTICK))
hrtick_clear(rq);
+ /*
+ * Make sure that signal_pending_state()->signal_pending() below
+ * can't be reordered with __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
+ * done by the caller to avoid the race with signal_wake_up().
+ */
+ smp_mb__before_spinlock();
raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
switch_count = &prev->nivcsw;
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from oleg@xxxxxxxxxx are
queue-3.10/sched-fix-the-theoretical-signal_wake_up-vs-schedule-race.patch
queue-3.10/selinux-selinux_setprocattr-ptrace_parent-needs-rcu_read_lock.patch
queue-3.10/libata-freezer-avoid-block-device-removal-while-system-is-frozen.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html