linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data

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

Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:10:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     bdegraaf@...eaurora.org
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
        Nathan Lynch <nathan_lynch@...tor.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm64: Enforce observed order for spinlock and data

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:55:57AM -0400, bdegraaf@...eaurora.org wrote:
> On 2016-10-04 15:12, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >Hi Brent,
> >
> >Could you *please* clarify if you are trying to solve:
> >
> >(a) a correctness issue (e.g. data corruption) seen in practice.
> >(b) a correctness issue (e.g. data corruption) found by inspection.
> >(c) A performance issue, seen in practice.
> >(d) A performance issue, found by inspection.
> >
> >Any one of these is fine; we just need to know in order to be able to
> >help effectively, and so far it hasn't been clear.

Brent, you forgot to state which: 'a-d' is the case here.

> I found the problem.
> 
> Back in September of 2013, arm64 atomics were broken due to missing barriers
> in certain situations, but the problem at that time was undiscovered.
> 
> Will Deacon's commit d2212b4dce596fee83e5c523400bf084f4cc816c went in at
> that
> time and changed the correct cmpxchg64 in lockref.c to cmpxchg64_relaxed.
> 
> d2212b4 appeared to be OK at that time because the additional barrier
> requirements of this specific code sequence were not yet discovered, and
> this change was consistent with the arm64 atomic code of that time.
> 
> Around February of 2014, some discovery led Will to correct the problem with
> the atomic code via commit 8e86f0b409a44193f1587e87b69c5dcf8f65be67, which
> has an excellent explanation of potential ordering problems with the same
> code sequence used by lockref.c.
> 
> With this updated understanding, the earlier commit
> (d2212b4dce596fee83e5c523400bf084f4cc816c) should be reverted.
> 
> Because acquire/release semantics are insufficient for the full ordering,
> the single barrier after the store exclusive is the best approach, similar
> to Will's atomic barrier fix.

This again does not in fact describe the problem.

What is the problem with lockref, and how (refer the earlier a-d
multiple choice answer) was this found.

Now, I have been looking, and we have some idea what you _might_ be
alluding to, but please explain which accesses get reordered how and
cause problems.