linux-kernel - Re: bit fields && data tearing

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: <54079B70.4050200@hurleysoftware.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Sep 2014 18:51:28 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Miroslav Franc <mfranc@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bit fields && data tearing

[ +cc linux-arch, Tony Luck, 

On 07/12/2014 02:13 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am not sure I should ask here, but since Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> mentions load/store tearing perhaps my question is not completely off-topic...
> 
> I am fighting with mysterious RHEL bug, it can be reproduced on ppc and s390
> but not on x86. Finally I seem to understand the problem, and I even wrote the
> stupid kernel module to ensure, see it below at the end.
> 
> It triggers the problem immediately, kt_2() sees the wrong value in freeze_stop.
> (If I turn ->freeze_stop int "long", the problem goes away).
> 
> So the question is: is this gcc bug or the code below is buggy?
> 
> If it is buggy, then probably memory-barriers.txt could mention that you should
> be carefull with bit fields, even ACCESS_ONCE() obviously can't help.
> 
> Or this just discloses my ignorance and you need at least aligned(long) after a
> bit field to be thread-safe ? I thought that compiler should take care and add
> the necessary alignment if (say) CPU can't update a single byte/uint.

Apologies for hijacking this thread but I need to extend this discussion
somewhat regarding what a compiler might do with adjacent fields in a structure.

The tty subsystem defines a large aggregate structure, struct tty_struct.
Importantly, several different locks apply to different fields within that
structure; ie., a specific spinlock will be claimed before updating or accessing
certain fields while a different spinlock will be claimed before updating or
accessing certain _adjacent_ fields.

What is necessary and sufficient to prevent accidental false-sharing?
The patch below was flagged as insufficient on ia64, and possibly ARM.

Regards,
Peter Hurley

--- >% ---
Subject: [PATCH 21/26] tty: Convert tty_struct bitfield to bools

The stopped, hw_stopped, flow_stopped and packet bits are smp-unsafe
and interrupt-unsafe. For example,

CPU 0                         | CPU 1
                              |
tty->flow_stopped = 1         | tty->hw_stopped = 0

One of these updates will be corrupted, as the bitwise operation
on the bitfield is non-atomic.

Ensure each flag has a separate memory location, so concurrent
updates do not corrupt orthogonal states.

Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
---
 include/linux/tty.h | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/tty.h b/include/linux/tty.h
index 1c3316a..7cf61cb 100644
--- a/include/linux/tty.h
+++ b/include/linux/tty.h
@@ -261,7 +261,10 @@ struct tty_struct {
 	unsigned long flags;
 	int count;
 	struct winsize winsize;		/* winsize_mutex */
-	unsigned char stopped:1, hw_stopped:1, flow_stopped:1, packet:1;
+	bool stopped;
+	bool hw_stopped;
+	bool flow_stopped;
+	bool packet;
 	unsigned char ctrl_status;	/* ctrl_lock */
 	unsigned int receive_room;	/* Bytes free for queue */
 	int flow_change;
-- 
2.1.0

--
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/