linux-kernel - Re: Using sparse to catch invalid RCU dereferences?

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: <1207670955.5550.15.camel@johannes.berg>
Date:	Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:09:15 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-sparse <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Using sparse to catch invalid RCU dereferences?


> So the address_space attribute says what the pointer points to rather
> than where the pointer resides, correct?

Yeah. It's currently used for __user and __iomem. Using it for rcu
wouldn't be quite the way it was intended, I think, but hey :)

> It might be.  There are a number of places where it is legal to access
> RCU-protected pointers directly, and all of these would need to be
> changed.  For example, in the example above, one could do:
> 
> 	foo = NULL;

Yeah, all of those would lead to sparse warnings. Are we willing to
change all that code?

> I recently tried to modify rcu_assign_pointer() to issue the memory
> memory barrier only when the pointer was non-NULL, but this ended badly.
> Probably because I am not the greatest gcc expert around...  We ended
> up having to define an rcu_assign_index() to handle the possibility of
> assigning a zero-value array index, but my attempts to do type-checking
> backfired, and I eventually gave it up.  Again, someone a bit more clued
> in to gcc than I am could probably pull it off.

I don't think I would be that person :)

> In addition, it is legal to omit rcu_dereference() and rcu_assign_pointer()
> when holding the update-side lock.

Right. Those too would lead to problems, unless we change that code to
use those (or other) macros.

> So I very much like this approach in general, but it will require some
> care to implement.  I would be very happy to review and comment!!!

I'll play with it a bit if I get around, was just reviewing some RCU
usage and had the feeling that it should be possible to automate.

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)