linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: fix a race in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry

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: <1369804097.3301.615.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Tue, 28 May 2013 22:08:17 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>, zhmurov@...dex-team.ru,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: fix a race in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu
 macro

On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 18:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:34:53PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 13:10 +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On 28.05.2013 04:12, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > 
> > > > Adding a barrier() is probably what we want.
> > > 
> > > I agree, inserting barrier() is also a correct and working fix.
> > 
> > Yeah, but I can not find a clean way to put it inside the "for (;;)"
> > 
> > for (barrier();;)  ->
> > 
> > error: expected expression before ‘__asm__’
> > 
> > No user currently does :
> > 
> > if (condition)
> > 	hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu(tpos, pos, head, member)
> > 
> > But who knows...
> 
> I still have my earlier question, but I suggest "({ barrier(); XXX })"
> to put the barrier into the for loop, either in the second or third
> clause, where XXX was the original second or third clause.
> 
> 	

Hmm, it doesn't work, I wanted to replace :

barrier();
for (expr1 ; expr2; expr3) {

by :

for ( some_clever_thing ; expr2; expr3) {

So barrier() should not be in second or third clause : it must be done
once and before "expr1".

Not a big deal anyway, we're not adding new
hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu() users :)


About your earlier question, I really don't know why compiler would
cache a memory read if we explicitly use barrier() to prevent this from
happening.

BTW Roman patch generates a double load as in :

2cb1:       49 8b 07                mov    (%r15),%rax    
2cb4:       49 8b 07                mov    (%r15),%rax        


...
2ea2:       e8 f9 dc ff ff          callq  ba0 <sock_put>
2ea7:       8b 0c 24                mov    (%rsp),%ecx
2eaa:       e9 02 fe ff ff          jmpq   2cb1 <udp4_lib_lookup2+0x91> 

because of ACCESS_ONCE() used twice, once explicitly in
hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu(), and once in rcu_dereference_raw()

While barrier();ptr = rcu_dereference(X); does generate a single load.



--
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/