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]
Message-ID: <YEo3gYOU/VnmHCeV@mit.edu>
Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:30:09 -0500
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        syzbot <syzbot+30774a6acf6a2cf6d535@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] KCSAN: data-race in start_this_handle /
 start_this_handle

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 04:08:30PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> If the outcome of the check does not affect correctness and the code is
> entirely fault tolerant to the precise value being read, then a
> data_race(!journal->j_running_transaction) marking here would be fine.

So a very common coding pattern is to check a value w/o the lock, and
if it looks like we might need to check *with* a lock, we'll grab the
lock and recheck.  Does KCSAN understand that this sort of thing is
safe automatically?

In thie particular case, it's a bit more complicated than that; we're
checking a value, and then allocating memory, grabbing the spin lock,
and then re-checking the value, so we don't have to drop the spinlock,
allocate the memory, grab the lock again, and then rechecking the
value.  So even if KCSAN catches the simpler case as described above,
we still might need to explicitly mark the data_race explicitly.

But the more we could have the compiler automatically figure out
things without needing an explicit tag, it would seem to me that this
would be better, since manual tagging is going to be more error-prone.

Cheers,

      	 	       	      	      	       - Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ