linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20110215215604.GA3177@ele.uri.edu>
Date:	Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:56:04 -0500
From:	Will Simoneau <simoneau@....uri.edu>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	will.newton@...il.com, hpa@...or.com, matt@...sole-pimps.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org, jbaron@...hat.com,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
	andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	avi@...hat.com, sam@...nborg.org, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
	michael@...erman.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vapier@...too.org, cmetcalf@...era.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

On 13:27 Tue 15 Feb     , David Miller wrote:
> From: Will Simoneau <simoneau@....uri.edu>
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:11:23 -0500
> 
> > Note how the cache and cache coherence protocol are fundamental parts of this
> > operation; if these instructions simply bypassed the cache, they *could not*
> > work correctly - how do you detect when the underlying memory has been
> > modified?
> 
> The issue here isn't L2 cache bypassing, it's local L1 cache bypassing.
> 
> The chips in question aparently do not consult the local L1 cache on
> "ll" instructions.
> 
> Therefore you must only ever access such atomic data using "ll"
> instructions.

(I should not have said "underlying memory", since it is correct that
only the L1 caches are the problem here)

That's some really crippled hardware... it does seem like *any* loads
from *any* address updated by an sc would have to be done with ll as
well, else they may load stale values. One could work this into
atomic_read(), but surely there are other places that are problems.

It would be OK if the caches on the hardware in question were to
back-invalidate matching cachelines when the sc is snooped from the bus,
but it sounds like this doesn't happen?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped