linux-kernel - Re: [patch 12/17] vfs: pagecache usage optimization for pagesize!=blocksize

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20080812113004.03c68f48@172.19.0.2>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:57:11 +0900
From:	Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@....cz,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 12/17] vfs: pagecache usage optimization for
  pagesize!=blocksize

Hi Nick.

>
>This patch unfortunately appears like it may introduce an
>uninitialized memory leak due to a data race between one
>thread initializing a buffer then marking it uptodate, and
>the other testing buffer uptodate then reading from the
>buffer (buffer, read as: page memory covered by buffer head).
>
>For reference, this is basically the same class of data race
>that I fixed 0ed361dec36945f3116ee1338638ada9a8920905

I think the same issue that your patch 0ed361dec36945f3116ee
1338638ada9a8920905 "fix PageUptodate data race" pointed out 
is there around buffer_head without my patch "vfs: pagecache usage 
optimization for pagesize!=blocksize".
Because set_buffer_uptodate or buffer_uptodate are used without
distinct locking facility (lock_buffer, or lock_page) in many places,
so it would be needed to deal with memory ordering issue.

Do you add wmb/rmb to BUFFER_FNS macros?


>
>I don't think this patch got quite enough justification to
>warrant just blindly putting barriers in the buffer bitops.
>The best-case numbers for it were reasonable enough when the
>downside was only an extra branch or two in a relatively slow
>path. I don't really know how best to go from here (maybe
>someone can argue it is not a problem or come up with a better
>fix?).
>
>Thanks,
>Nick

--
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/