linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix a race condition in cancelable mcs spinlocks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 2 Jun 2014 06:24:54 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	jejb@...isc-linux.org, deller@....de, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chegu_vinod@...com,
	Waiman.Long@...com, tglx@...utronix.de, riel@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr@...com, hpa@...or.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org, aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix a race condition in cancelable mcs spinlocks

On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:19:39AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 04:46:26PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
> > > On 1-Jun-14, at 3:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > >>If you write to some variable with ACCESS_ONCE and use cmpxchg or xchg
> > > >>at
> > > >>the same time, you break it. ACCESS_ONCE doesn't take the hashed
> > > >>spinlock,
> > > >>so, in this case, cmpxchg or xchg isn't really atomic at all.
> > > >
> > > >And this is really the first place in the kernel that breaks like this?
> > > >I've been using xchg() and cmpxchg() without such consideration for
> > > >quite a while.
> > > 
> > > I believe Mikulas is correct.  Even in a controlled situation where a
> > > cmpxchg operation
> > > is used to implement pthread_spin_lock() in userspace, we found recently
> > > that the lock
> > > must be released with a  cmpxchg operation and not a simple write on SMP
> > > systems.
> > > There is a race in the cache operations or instruction ordering that's not
> > > present with
> > > the ldcw instruction.
> > 
> > Oh, I'm not arguing that. He's quite right that its broken, but this
> > form of atomic ops is also quite insane and unusual. Most sane machines
> > don't have this problem.
> > 
> > My main concern is how are we going to avoid breaking parisc (and I
> > think sparc32, which is similarly retarded) in the future; we should
> > invest in machinery to find and detect these things.
> 
> Grep the kernel for "\<xchg\>" and "\<cmpxchg\>" and replace them with 
> atomic types and atomic access functions.

Not so good for pointers, though.  Defeats type-checking, for one thing.
An example of this is use of xchg() for atomically enqueuing RCU callbacks
in kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h.

I still like the idea of PA-RISC's compiler implementing ACCESS_ONCE()
as needed to make things work on that architecture.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/