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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:49:37 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	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 03:44:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +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...

Hehe, think of then as a load-store barrier; due to the 'impossibility'
of speculative stores (we'd see all kinds of random crap if you could
speculate stores).

> 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?

Nope, because its (again) a load-load order you have there.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ