linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5473A046.2020901@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:16:54 +0100
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mips <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	linux-x86_64@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/7] kernel: Force ACCESS_ONCE to work only on scalar
 types

Am 24.11.2014 um 22:02 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Christian Borntraeger
> <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> That looks like a lot of changes all over ACCESS_ONCE -> ASSIGN_ONCE:
>> git grep "ACCESS_ONCE.*=.*"
>> gives me 200 placea not in Documentation.
> 
> Yeah, that's a bit annoying.
> 
> How about a combination of the two:
> 
>  - accept the fact that right now ACCESS_ONCE() is fairly widespread
> (even for writing)
> 
>  - but also admit that we'd be better off with a nicer interface
> 
> and make the solution be:
> 
>  - make ACCESS_ONCE() only work on scalars, and deprecate it
> 
>  - add new "read_once()" and "write_once()" interfaces that *do* work
> on (appropriately sized) structures and unions, and start migrating
> things over. In particular, start with the ones that can no longer use
> ACCESS_ONCE() because they aren't scalar..
> 
> That second point would make the conversion patches actually easier to
> read. Instead of this:
> 
>  static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -       struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> +       arch_spinlock_t tmp = {};
> 
> -       return tmp.tail != tmp.head;
> +       tmp.head_tail =ACCESS_ONCE(lock->head_tail);
> +       return tmp.tickets.tail != tmp.tickets.head;
>  }
> 
> which isn't *complex*, but is also not an obvious conversion, we'd have just
> 
>  static inline int arch_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
>  {
> -       struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
> -       struct __raw_tickets tmp = read_once(lock->tickets);
> 
>         return tmp.tail != tmp.head;
>  }
> 
> which is a much simpler and more obvious change.
> 
> And then we could slowly try to migrate existing ACCESS_ONCE() users
> over (particularly writers).
> 
> Hmm? Too much?

I will give it a try. I will start with Alexei's version for ACCESS_ONCE and your snippets to build read_once and write_once. The only open question is, what to do with the "too large" accesses. Pauls initial patch showed several 
places, e.g. kernel/sched/fair.c accessing an u64 even on 32bit:
[...]
   age_stamp = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->age_stamp);
        avg = ACCESS_ONCE(rq->rt_avg);
[...]

I think I will simply not touch those...



Christian

--
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/