linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing completions

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: <1423265047.1057.8.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date:	Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:24:07 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 spinlock: Fix memory corruption on completing
 completions

On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 16:15 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 02/06/2015 02:42 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 08:25 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Raghavendra K T
> >> <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>> Paravirt spinlock clears slowpath flag after doing unlock.
> >> [ fix edited out ]
> >>
> >> So I'm not going to be applying this for 3.19, because it's much too
> >> late and the patch is too scary. Plus the bug probably effectively
> >> never shows up in real life (it is probably easy to trigger the
> >> speculative *read* but probably never the actual speculative write
> >> after dropping the lock last).
> >>
> >> This will need a lot of testing by the paravirt people - both
> >> performance and correctness. So *maybe* for 3.20, but maybe for even
> >> later, and then marked for stable, of course.
> >>
> >> Are there any good paravirt stress-tests that people could run for
> >> extended times?
> > 
> > locktorture inside a VM should give a proper pounding.
> 
> Would it catch lifetime issues too? I thought it just tests out correctness.

Given enough contention it should, yeah. The spinlock can be acquired by
another thread right after releasing the lock in the unlock's slowpath.
And all locktorture does is pound on locks with random hold times.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/