linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: fix data race in put

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]

Date:	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:08 +0200
From:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"mhocko@...e.cz" <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"ktsan@...glegroups.com" <ktsan@...glegroups.com>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	Hans Boehm <hboehm@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: fix data race in put_pid

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 09/18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> Provide atomic_read_ctrl() to mirror READ_ONCE_CTRL(), such that we can
>> more conveniently use atomics in control dependencies.
>>
>> Since we can assume atomic_read() implies a READ_ONCE(), we must only
>> emit an extra smp_read_barrier_depends() in order to upgrade to
>> READ_ONCE_CTRL() semantics.
>
> ...
>
>> +static inline int atomic_read_ctrl(atomic_t *v)
>> +{
>> +     int val = atomic_read(v);
>> +     smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Enforce control dependency. */
>> +     return val;
>> +}
>
> Help. I am starting to think that the control dependencies is even more
> hard to understand that memory barriers...
>
> So I assume that if we have
>
>         int X = 0;
>         atomic_t Y = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>
>         void w(void)
>         {
>                 X = 1;
>                 atomic_inc_return(&Y);
>         }
>
> then
>
>         void r(void)
>         {
>                 if (atomic_read_ctrl(&Y))
>                         BUG_ON(X == 0);
>         }
>
> should be correct?  Why?
>
> If not then I am even more confused.

This not correct, because "ctrl" barrier affects only
control-dependent stores. For reads processor still can speculate,
that is, speculatively load X before loading Y. Control-dependent
require full read/acquire memory barrier.
What will work is:

// thread 1
                 X = 1;
                 atomic_inc_return(&Y);

// thread 2
                 if (atomic_read_ctrl(&Y)) {
                         X = 2;
                         BUG_ON(X == 2);
                  }

Without the "ctrl" barrier store X=2 could hoist above load of Y (on
Alpha), and then X=1 can happen _after_ X=2, and then BUG_ON could
fail.
With the "ctrl" barrier store X=2 is not allowed to hoist above load of Y.


-- 
Dmitry Vyukov, Software Engineer, dvyukov@...gle.com
Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstraße 12, 80331, München
Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat
sind, leiten Sie diese bitte nicht weiter, informieren Sie den
Absender und löschen Sie die E-Mail und alle Anhänge. Vielen Dank.
This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the right addressee please
do not forward it, please inform the sender, and please erase this
e-mail including any attachments. Thanks.
--
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/