| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <54611D86.4040306@de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:18:14 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Andreas Krebbel <Andreas.Krebbel@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Subject: compiler bug gcc4.6/4.7 with ACCESS_ONCE and workarounds
Linus,
Last week I sent belows patch to Paolo for kvm/next.
Heiko Carstens pointed out that the kernel often does not
work around compiler bugs, instead we blacklist the
compiler, make a buildbug on or similar when we cant be
sure to catch all broken cases, e.g. Heiko mentioned
the the x86 specific test cases for stack protector.
Now: I can reproduces belows miscompile on gcc46 and gcc 47
gcc 45 seems ok, gcc 48 is fixed. This makes blacklisting
a bit hard, especially since it is not limited to s390, but
covers all architectures.
In essence ACCESS_ONCE will not work reliably on aggregate
types with gcc 4.6 and gcc 4.7.
In Linux we seem to use ACCESS_ONCE mostly on scalar types,
below code is an example were we dont - and break.
Linus, what is your take on workarounds of compiler bugs?
The barrier solution below will fix that particular case, but
are there others? Maybe we can come with a clever trick of
creating a build-bug for ACCESS_ONCE on non-scalar types?
A testcase is not trivial, since we have to rely on other
optimization steps to actually do the wrong thing and the
gcc testcase test will dump the internal tree and check
that - something that does not seem to be ok for the kernel.
Christian
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [GIT PULL 1/4] KVM: s390: Fix ipte locking
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:45:13 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
CC: KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>, Jens Freimann <jfrei@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
ipte_unlock_siif uses cmpxchg to replace the in-memory data of the ipte
lock together with ACCESS_ONCE for the intial read.
union ipte_control {
unsigned long val;
struct {
unsigned long k : 1;
unsigned long kh : 31;
unsigned long kg : 32;
};
};
[...]
static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
ic = &vcpu->kvm->arch.sca->ipte_control;
do {
new = old = ACCESS_ONCE(*ic);
new.kh--;
if (!new.kh)
new.k = 0;
} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
if (!new.kh)
wake_up(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
}
The new value, is loaded twice from memory with gcc 4.7.2 of
fedora 18, despite the ACCESS_ONCE:
--->
l %r4,0(%r3) <--- load first 32 bit of lock (k and kh) in r4
alfi %r4,2147483647 <--- add -1 to r4
llgtr %r4,%r4 <--- zero out the sign bit of r4
lg %r1,0(%r3) <--- load all 64 bit of lock into new
lgr %r2,%r1 <--- load the same into old
risbg %r1,%r4,1,31,32 <--- shift and insert r4 into the bits 1-31 of
new
llihf %r4,2147483647
ngrk %r4,%r1,%r4
jne aa0 <ipte_unlock+0xf8>
nihh %r1,32767
lgr %r4,%r2
csg %r4,%r1,0(%r3)
cgr %r2,%r4
jne a70 <ipte_unlock+0xc8>
If the memory value changes between the first load (l) and the second
load (lg) we are broken. If that happens VCPU threads will hang
(unkillable) in handle_ipte_interlock.
Andreas Krebbel analyzed this and tracked it down to a compiler bug in
that version:
"while it is not that obvious the C99 standard basically forbids
duplicating the memory access also in that case. For an argumentation of
a similiar case please see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22278#c43
For the implementation-defined cases regarding volatile there are some
GCC-specific clarifications which can be found here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Volatiles.html#Volatiles
I've tracked down the problem with a reduced testcase. The problem was
that during a tree level optimization (SRA - scalar replacement of
aggregates) the volatile marker is lost. And an RTL level optimizer (CSE
- common subexpression elimination) then propagated the memory read into
its second use introducing another access to the memory location. So
indeed Christian's suspicion that the union access has something to do
with it is correct (since it triggered the SRA optimization).
This issue has been reported and fixed in the GCC 4.8 development cycle:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58145"
This patch replaces the ACCESS_ONCE scheme with a barrier() based scheme
that should work for all supported compilers.
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v3.16+
---
arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
index 0f961a1..6dc0ad9 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
@@ -229,10 +229,12 @@ static void ipte_lock_simple(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
goto out;
ic = &vcpu->kvm->arch.sca->ipte_control;
do {
- old = ACCESS_ONCE(*ic);
+ old = *ic;
+ barrier();
while (old.k) {
cond_resched();
- old = ACCESS_ONCE(*ic);
+ old = *ic;
+ barrier();
}
new = old;
new.k = 1;
@@ -251,7 +253,9 @@ static void ipte_unlock_simple(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
goto out;
ic = &vcpu->kvm->arch.sca->ipte_control;
do {
- new = old = ACCESS_ONCE(*ic);
+ old = *ic;
+ barrier();
+ new = old;
new.k = 0;
} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
wake_up(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
@@ -265,10 +269,12 @@ static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
ic = &vcpu->kvm->arch.sca->ipte_control;
do {
- old = ACCESS_ONCE(*ic);
+ old = *ic;
+ barrier();
while (old.kg) {
cond_resched();
- old = ACCESS_ONCE(*ic);
+ old = *ic;
+ barrier();
}
new = old;
new.k = 1;
@@ -282,7 +288,9 @@ static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
ic = &vcpu->kvm->arch.sca->ipte_control;
do {
- new = old = ACCESS_ONCE(*ic);
+ old = *ic;
+ barrier();
+ new = old;
new.kh--;
if (!new.kh)
new.k = 0;
--
1.9.3
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists