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]

Message-ID: <20160513145814.GS3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2016 16:58:14 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Additional compiler barrier required in
 sched_preempt_enable_no_resched?

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:39:47PM -0700, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I came across a piece of engineering code that looked like:
> 
> 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.)

I'm with Thomas here, that's broken and should not be done.

> 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
> after (has one before already) the preempt-count decrement to prevent this
> sort of thing?

I think the below would be sufficient; IIRC the compiler may not combine
or elide volatile operations.

---
 include/asm-generic/preempt.h | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/asm-generic/preempt.h b/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
index 5d8ffa3e6f8c..c1cde3577551 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/preempt.h
@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
 
 static __always_inline int preempt_count(void)
 {
-	return current_thread_info()->preempt_count;
+	return READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->preempt_count);
 }
 
-static __always_inline int *preempt_count_ptr(void)
+static __always_inline volatile int *preempt_count_ptr(void)
 {
 	return &current_thread_info()->preempt_count;
 }