linux-kernel - Re: [tip:locking/urgent] compiler, atomics: Provide READ_ONCE

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: <CACT4Y+Zszzbv1kXJfL=axrMPXzX7iDC0=F0YTb2VWpifVRGKhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:18:58 +0200
From:	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	tip-bot for Andrey Ryabinin <tipbot@...or.com>,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
	kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Wolfram Gloger <wmglo@...t.med.uni-muenchen.de>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/urgent] compiler, atomics: Provide READ_ONCE_NOCHECK ()

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:08:16PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> >> > So I add READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() for accesses for which the compiler cannot
>> >> > prove safe address for KASAN's benefit, but READ_ONCE() suffices for
>> >> > the data-race-detection logic in KTSAN, correct?
>> >>
>> >> KTSAN also needs READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() here. KTSAN will flag races
>> >> between get_wchan() and the thread accesses to own stack even more
>> >> aggressively than KASAN, because KTSAN won't like get_wchan() accesses
>> >> even to non-poisoned areas of other thread stack.
>> >
>> > So to keep KTSAN happy, any read from some other thread's stack requires
>> > READ_ONCE_NOCHECK()?  What if the access is via a locking primitive or
>> > read-modify-write atomic operation?
>> >
>> > This is of some interest in RCU, which implements synchronous grace
>> > periods using completions that are allocated on the calling task's stack
>> > and manipulated by RCU callbacks that are likely executing elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> KTSAN does not have any special logic for stacks. It just generally
>> flags pairs of accesses when (1) at least one access is not atomic,
>> (2) at least one access is a write and (3) these accesses are not
>> synchronized by means of other synchronization.
>
> But but but.. WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE _are_ atomic when on naturally
> aligned machine word sized thingies. We very much rely on that.
>
> And the wchan thing is very much that, its not some weird large object,
> its a single word, read with an explicit 'volatile' cast.
>
> This is good, and should not require more magic annotations.


Well, if another thread writes it byte-by-byte, it pretty much does
not matter how you read it.
Note that I said "at least one access is not atomic". If both are
atomic, then this is, of course, legal. And KTSAN considers
READ/WRITE_ONCE as atomic operations.
--
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/