linux-kernel - Re: Additional compiler barrier required in sched_preempt_enable_no

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, 13 May 2016 16:21:19 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>
cc:	peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Additional compiler barrier required in
 sched_preempt_enable_no_resched?

On Thu, 12 May 2016, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> preempt_disable();
> /* --cut, lots of code-- */
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> put_user()
> preempt_disable();
> 
> (If you wish to seriously question the usage of the preempt API in this
> manner, I unfortunately have no comment since I didn't write the code.)
> 
> This particular block of code was causing lockups and crashes on a certain
> ARM64 device. The generated assembly revealed that the compiler was simply
> optimizing out the increment and decrement of the preempt count, allowing
> put_user to run without preemption enabled, causing all sorts of badness.
> Since put_user doesn't actually access the preempt count and translates to
> just a few instructions without any branching, I suppose that the compiler
> figured it was OK to optimize.
> 
> The immediate solution is to add a compiler barrier to the code above, but
> should sched_preempt_enable_no_resched have an additional compiler barrier

preempt_enable_no_resched() should not be used at all. Use preempt_enable().

Thanks,

	tglx