From 4c5ea0a9cd02d6aa8adc86e100b2a4cff8d614ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paolo Bonzini Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:52:17 +0200 Subject: locking/static_key: Fix concurrent static_key_slow_inc() The following scenario is possible: CPU 1 CPU 2 static_key_slow_inc() atomic_inc_not_zero() -> key.enabled == 0, no increment jump_label_lock() atomic_inc_return() -> key.enabled == 1 now static_key_slow_inc() atomic_inc_not_zero() -> key.enabled == 1, inc to 2 return ** static key is wrong! jump_label_update() jump_label_unlock() Testing the static key at the point marked by (**) will follow the wrong path for jumps that have not been patched yet. This can actually happen when creating many KVM virtual machines with userspace LAPIC emulation; just run several copies of the following program: #include #include #include #include int main(void) { for (;;) { int kvmfd = open("/dev/kvm", O_RDONLY); int vmfd = ioctl(kvmfd, KVM_CREATE_VM, 0); close(ioctl(vmfd, KVM_CREATE_VCPU, 1)); close(vmfd); close(kvmfd); } return 0; } Every KVM_CREATE_VCPU ioctl will attempt a static_key_slow_inc() call. The static key's purpose is to skip NULL pointer checks and indeed one of the processes eventually dereferences NULL. As explained in the commit that introduced the bug: 706249c222f6 ("locking/static_keys: Rework update logic") jump_label_update() needs key.enabled to be true. The solution adopted here is to temporarily make key.enabled == -1, and use go down the slow path when key.enabled <= 0. Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: # v4.3+ Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Fixes: 706249c222f6 ("locking/static_keys: Rework update logic") Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1466527937-69798-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com [ Small stylistic edits to the changelog and the code. ] Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/jump_label.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel') diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c index 05254eeb4b4e..4b353e0be121 100644 --- a/kernel/jump_label.c +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c @@ -58,13 +58,36 @@ static void jump_label_update(struct static_key *key); void static_key_slow_inc(struct static_key *key) { + int v, v1; + STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(); - if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&key->enabled)) - return; + + /* + * Careful if we get concurrent static_key_slow_inc() calls; + * later calls must wait for the first one to _finish_ the + * jump_label_update() process. At the same time, however, + * the jump_label_update() call below wants to see + * static_key_enabled(&key) for jumps to be updated properly. + * + * So give a special meaning to negative key->enabled: it sends + * static_key_slow_inc() down the slow path, and it is non-zero + * so it counts as "enabled" in jump_label_update(). Note that + * atomic_inc_unless_negative() checks >= 0, so roll our own. + */ + for (v = atomic_read(&key->enabled); v > 0; v = v1) { + v1 = atomic_cmpxchg(&key->enabled, v, v + 1); + if (likely(v1 == v)) + return; + } jump_label_lock(); - if (atomic_inc_return(&key->enabled) == 1) + if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) == 0) { + atomic_set(&key->enabled, -1); jump_label_update(key); + atomic_set(&key->enabled, 1); + } else { + atomic_inc(&key->enabled); + } jump_label_unlock(); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_slow_inc); @@ -72,6 +95,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_slow_inc); static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct static_key *key, unsigned long rate_limit, struct delayed_work *work) { + /* + * The negative count check is valid even when a negative + * key->enabled is in use by static_key_slow_inc(); a + * __static_key_slow_dec() before the first static_key_slow_inc() + * returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc() + * instances block while the update is in progress. + */ if (!atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(&key->enabled, &jump_label_mutex)) { WARN(atomic_read(&key->enabled) < 0, "jump label: negative count!\n"); -- cgit v1.2.3