linux-kernel - Re: barriers: was: [RFC PATCH v2 17/18] livepatch: change to a per-task consistency model

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:	Wed, 4 May 2016 15:53:29 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
	Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.com>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: barriers: was: [RFC PATCH v2 17/18] livepatch: change to a
 per-task consistency model

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 02:39:40PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > +	 * This barrier also ensures that if another CPU goes through the
> > +	 * syscall barrier, sees the TIF_PATCH_PENDING writes in
> > +	 * klp_start_transition(), and calls klp_patch_task(), it also sees the
> > +	 * above write to the target state.  Otherwise it can put the task in
> > +	 * the wrong universe.
> > +	 */
> 
> By other words, it makes sure that klp_patch_task() will assign the
> right patch_state. Where klp_patch_task() could not be called
> before we set TIF_PATCH_PENDING in klp_start_transition().
> 
> > +	smp_wmb();
> > +}

So I've not read the patch; but ending a function with an smp_wmb()
feels wrong.

A wmb orders two stores, and I feel both stores should be well visible
in the same function.