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: <20150211172434.GA28689@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:24:34 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	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>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.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 02/10, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> On 02/10/2015 05:26 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 02/10, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >> Unfortunately xadd could result in head overflow as tail is high.
> >>
> >> The other option was repeated cmpxchg which is bad I believe.
> >> Any suggestions?
> > Stupid question... what if we simply move SLOWPATH from .tail to .head?
> > In this case arch_spin_unlock() could do xadd(tickets.head) and check
> > the result
>
> Well, right now, "tail" is manipulated by locked instructions by CPUs
> who are contending for the ticketlock, but head can be manipulated
> unlocked by the CPU which currently owns the ticketlock. If SLOWPATH
> moved into head, then non-owner CPUs would be touching head, requiring
> everyone to use locked instructions on it.
>
> That's the theory, but I don't see much (any?) code which depends on that.
>
> Ideally we could find a way so that pv ticketlocks could use a plain
> unlocked add for the unlock like the non-pv case, but I just don't see a
> way to do it.

I agree, and I have to admit I am not sure I fully understand why unlock
uses the locked add. Except we need a barrier to avoid the race with the
enter_slowpath() users, of course. Perhaps this is the only reason?

Anyway, I suggested this to avoid the overflow if we use xadd(), and I
guess we need the locked insn anyway if we want to eliminate the unsafe
read-after-unlock...

> > BTW. If we move "clear slowpath" into "lock" path, then probably trylock
> > should be changed too? Something like below, we just need to clear SLOWPATH
> > before cmpxchg.
>
> How important / widely used is trylock these days?

I am not saying this is that important. Just this looks more consistent imo
and we can do this for free.

Oleg.

--
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/