Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-16735-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231216-rb-new-condvar-methods-v2-0-b05ab61e6d5b@google.com>
 <20231216-rb-new-condvar-methods-v2-3-b05ab61e6d5b@google.com>
 <3fba196a-8cb6-4ce9-9e67-bfb716a2d171@proton.me> <ZYRtuRXPgQcN_3cr@boqun-archlinux>
In-Reply-To: <ZYRtuRXPgQcN_3cr@boqun-archlinux>
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 14:49:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH5fLghmG4e0RjVdPuyWYgCt2cQ9+_WRP81tGxS4qyL91vHiEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] rust: sync: add `CondVar::wait_timeout`
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>, Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>, Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Roy_Baron?= <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, 
	Tiago Lam <tiagolam@gmail.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:54=E2=80=AFPM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:31:05AM +0000, Benno Lossin wrote:
> > On 12/16/23 16:31, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > > @@ -102,7 +105,12 @@ pub fn new(name: &'static CStr, key: &'static Lo=
ckClassKey) -> impl PinInit<Self
> > >          })
> > >      }
> > >
> > > -    fn wait_internal<T: ?Sized, B: Backend>(&self, wait_state: u32, =
guard: &mut Guard<'_, T, B>) {
> > > +    fn wait_internal<T: ?Sized, B: Backend>(
> > > +        &self,
> > > +        wait_state: u32,
> > > +        guard: &mut Guard<'_, T, B>,
> > > +        timeout: c_long,
> > > +    ) -> c_long {
> > >          let wait =3D Opaque::<bindings::wait_queue_entry>::uninit();
> > >
> > >          // SAFETY: `wait` points to valid memory.
> > > @@ -113,11 +121,13 @@ fn wait_internal<T: ?Sized, B: Backend>(&self, =
wait_state: u32, guard: &mut Guar
> > >              bindings::prepare_to_wait_exclusive(self.wait_list.get()=
, wait.get(), wait_state as _)
> > >          };
> > >
> > > -        // SAFETY: No arguments, switches to another thread.
> > > -        guard.do_unlocked(|| unsafe { bindings::schedule() });
> > > +        // SAFETY: Switches to another thread. The timeout can be an=
y number.
> > > +        let ret =3D guard.do_unlocked(|| unsafe { bindings::schedule=
_timeout(timeout) });
> >
> > I am not sure what exactly the safety requirements of `schedule_timeout=
`
> > are. I looked at the function and saw that the timout should not be
> > negative. But aside from that only the the context switching should be
> > relevant. What things are not allowed to do when calling `schedule`
> > (aside from the stuff that klint catches)?
>
> One thing is that you probably don't want to call `schedule` with task
> state being TASK_DEAD, if so the `schedule` would be counted as
> `ARef<Task>::drop()`, see __schedule() -> context_switch() ->
> finish_context_switch(), and the task may be freed after that, which
> free the stack of the task, and anything that references a object on the
> stack would be a UAF. On the other hand, if the task state is not
> TASK_DEAD, `schedule*()` should be a no-op regarding memory safety.
>
> > Because if there are none, then I would put the "switches to another
> > thread" part into a normal comment.
> >
>
> I think it's possible to make schedule_timeout() a safe function: we can
> define setting task state TASK_DEAD as an unsafe operation, whose safety
> requirement is something like: "Must ensure that if some code can
> reference a memory object that belongs to the task (e.g. a stack
> variable) after the task calls a followed `schedule()`, the code must
> also hold an additional reference count to the task."
>
> Yes, it might be out of the scope of this patchset though.

These things sound like they are out of scope of this patchset.
Changing it from schedule to schedule_timeout doesn't change whether
this is ok or not.

Alice