linux-kernel - Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

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: <1319803781.23112.113.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:09:41 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: >Re: [RFC] should VM_BUG_ON(cond) really evaluate cond

Le vendredi 28 octobre 2011 à 04:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > The only requirement of atomic_read() is that it must return value
> > before or after an atomic_write(), not a garbled value.
> 
> The problem is that gcc *can* return a garbled value.
> 
> > In fact, if a compiler is stupid enough to issue two reads on following
> > code :
> 
> The compiler really *can* be that "stupid". Except the code tends to
> look like this:
> 
>    int value = atomic_read(&atomic_var);
>    if (value > 10)
>      return;
>    .. do something with value ..
> 
> and gcc may decide - under register pressure, and in the absense of a
> 'volatile' - to read 'value' first once for that "> 10" check, and
> then it drops the registers and instead of saving it on the stack
> frame, it can decide to re-load it from atomic_var.
> 
> IOW, "value" could be two or more different values: one value when
> testing, and *another* value in "do something with value".
> 
> This is why we have "ACCESS_ONCE()".
> 
> Whether atomics guarantee ACCESS_ONCE() semantics or not is not
> entirely clear. But afaik, there is no way to tell gcc "access at
> *most* once, and never ever reload".
> 

What you describe is true for non atomic variables as well, its not part
of the atomic_ops documented semantic.

And we do use ACCESS_ONCE() on the rare cases we need to make sure no
reload is done.

RCU use makes this implied (ACCESS_ONCE() being done in
rcu_dereference()), so we dont have many raw ACCESS_ONCE() in our code.

int value = ACCESS_ONCE(atomic_read(&atomic_var));
if (value > 10)
     return;
.. do something with value ..

One of such rare use is explained in commit f1987257
(tcp: protect sysctl_tcp_cookie_size reads)

Since its a bit ugly, I suggested :

int value = atomic_read_once(&atomic_var);
if (value > 10)
     return;
    .. do something with value ..

I dont know, it seems the right way, but yes it might break things.

We can take the otherway and patch thousand atomic_read() to
atomic_read_stable(), its safer but very boring :)



--
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/