linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:28:03 -0800
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mips <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS_ONCE to work only on scalar types

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've changed gcc pr58145-1.c reproducer to use
>> __read_once_size() approach above
>
> I don't think you did.
>
>> modified reproducer:
>> struct S { unsigned int data; };
>> void bar(int val)
>> {
>>   struct S _s = { .data = val };
>>   *(volatile struct S *) 0x880000UL = ACCESS_ONCE(&_s);
>> }
>
> My approach never had "volatile struct S *". The only volatile
> pointers were the actual byte/word/etc pointers, and those generated

you're right. In my invalid snippet above the ACCESS_ONCE
to struct on stack gets optimized away and only 'volatile struct *'
in left hand side is triggering the bug.

Have tried the following which blends your proposal
with original code from Christian:
/* bad
#define ACCESS_ONCE(x) *((volatile typeof(x) *)&(x))
*/

/* good */
#define ACCESS_ONCE(p) \
      ({ typeof(*p) __val; __read_once_size(p, &__val, sizeof(__val)); __val; })

static __always_inline void __read_once_size(volatile void *p, void
*res, int size)
{
     switch (size) {
     case 1: *(u8 *)res = *(volatile u8 *)p; break;
     case 2: *(u16 *)res = *(volatile u16 *)p; break;
     case 4: *(u32 *)res = *(volatile u32 *)p; break;
     case 8: *(u64 *)res = *(volatile u64 *)p; break;
     }
}

union ipte_control {
        unsigned long val;
        struct {
                unsigned long k  : 1;
                unsigned long kh : 31;
                unsigned long kg : 32;
        };
};

struct kvm_vcpu {
        union ipte_control ic;
};

void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
        union ipte_control old, new, *ic;

        ic = &vcpu->ic;
        do {
                new = old = ACCESS_ONCE(ic);
                new.kh--;
                if (!new.kh)
                        new.k = 0;
        } while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
}

generated code looks correct with and without strict-aliasing
and volatile marking is preserved properly.
(to check for volatile marks add -fdump-tree-optimized
 and look for {v} in *.optimized)

> Pretty? No. But then, the standard C aliasing rules are so broken that
> "pretty" doesn't really come into play..

Agree. I don't see any warnings or code generation issues with and
without strict-aliasing with your original __read_once_size(), so no need
to play union tricks. Initially I was worried that extra always_inline
function will make generated code worse in critical paths where
ACCESS_ONCE is used, but after looking close enough, it seems
all should be fine.

Note, with unmodified ACCESS_ONCE all architectures (even x64)
are missing volatile markings with gcc 4.6.3, 4.7.2 for Christian's
use case.
--
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/