linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: use a sequence counter instead of file_lock in fd

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: <1429710915.18561.72.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:55:15 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: use a sequence counter instead of file_lock in
 fd_install

On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 15:31 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 02:06:53PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 22:12 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > 
> > > in dup_fd:
> > >        for (i = open_files; i != 0; i--) {
> > >                 struct file *f = *old_fds++;
> > >                 if (f) {
> > >                         get_file(f);
> > > 
> > 
> > I see no new requirement here. f is either NULL or not.
> > multi threaded programs never had a guarantee dup_fd() would catch a non
> > NULL pointer here.
> > 
> 
> It's not about seeing NULL f or not, but using the right address for
> dereference.
> 
> If I read memory-barriers.txt right (see 'DATA DEPENDENCY BARRIERS'), it
> is possible that cpus like alpha will see a non-NULL pointer and then
> proceed to dereference *the old* (here: NULL) value.
> 
> Hence I suspect this needs smp_read_barrier_depends (along with
> ACCESS_ONCE).
> 
> Other consumers (e.g. procfs code) use rcu_dereference macro which does
> ends up using lockless_dereference macro, which in turn does:
> #define lockless_dereference(p) \
> ({ \
>         typeof(p) _________p1 = ACCESS_ONCE(p); \
> 	        smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Dependency order vs. p
> 		above. */ \
> 		        (_________p1); \
> })
> 
> That said memory barriers are not exactly my strong suit, but I do
> believe my suspicion here is justified enough to ask someone with solid
> memory barrier-fu to comment.


Again, your comment has nothing to do with the patch.

If there is old data, it only can be a NULL. And it is fine, case was
_already_ handled.

It can not be an 'old' file pointer, because close() takes the spinlock.
spin_unlock() contains a write memory barrier, so the NULL pointer put
by close() would have been committed to memory.

This works also on alpha cpus.



--
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/