Commit 4c5ea0a9 authored by Paolo Bonzini's avatar Paolo Bonzini Committed by Ingo Molnar

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 <fcntl.h>
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <sys/ioctl.h>
    #include <linux/kvm.h>

    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:

  706249c2 ("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: default avatarDmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v4.3+
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Fixes: 706249c2 ("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: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent 33688abb
......@@ -117,13 +117,18 @@ struct module;
#include <linux/atomic.h>
#ifdef HAVE_JUMP_LABEL
static inline int static_key_count(struct static_key *key)
{
return atomic_read(&key->enabled);
/*
* -1 means the first static_key_slow_inc() is in progress.
* static_key_enabled() must return true, so return 1 here.
*/
int n = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
return n >= 0 ? n : 1;
}
#ifdef HAVE_JUMP_LABEL
#define JUMP_TYPE_FALSE 0UL
#define JUMP_TYPE_TRUE 1UL
#define JUMP_TYPE_MASK 1UL
......@@ -162,6 +167,11 @@ extern void jump_label_apply_nops(struct module *mod);
#else /* !HAVE_JUMP_LABEL */
static inline int static_key_count(struct static_key *key)
{
return atomic_read(&key->enabled);
}
static __always_inline void jump_label_init(void)
{
static_key_initialized = true;
......
......@@ -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");
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment