linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bug in futex unqueue

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: <1154303601.10074.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:53:21 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Christian Borntraeger <borntrae@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...esys.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bug in futex unqueue_me

On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 08:38 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Christian Borntraeger <borntrae@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae@...ibm.com>
> > 
> > This patch adds a barrier() in futex unqueue_me to avoid aliasing of 
> > two pointers.
> >
> > On my s390x system I saw the following oops:
> 
> > So the code becomes more or less:
> > if (q->lock_ptr != 0) spin_lock(q->lock_ptr)
> > instead of
> > if (lock_ptr != 0) spin_lock(lock_ptr)
> >
> > Which caused the oops from above.
> 
> interesting, how is this possible? We do a spin_lock(lock_ptr), and 
> taking a spinlock is an implicit barrier(). So gcc must not delay 
> evaluating lock_ptr to inside the critical section. And as far as i can 
> see the s390 spinlock implementation goes through an 'asm volatile' 
> piece of code, which is a barrier already. So how could this have 
> happened? I have nothing against adding a barrier(), but we should first 
> investigate why the spin_lock() didnt act as a barrier - there might be 
> other, similar bugs hiding. (we rely on spin_lock()s barrier-ness in a 
> fair number of places)

Ingo,  this spinlock is probably still a barrier, but is it still a
barrier on itself?  That is, the problem here is that we have the
compiler optimizing the lock_ptr temp variable that is used inside the
spin_lock.  So does a spin_lock protect itself, or just the stuff inside
it?

Here we need a barrier to keep gcc from optimizing the use of the lock
and not what the lock is protecting.

I don't know about other areas in the kernel that has a dynamic spin
lock like this that needs protection.

-- Steve


-
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/