linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v7 7/7] Restartable sequences: self-tests

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: <20160812012854.GC1740@tardis.cn.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:28:54 +0800
From:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7 7/7] Restartable sequences: self-tests

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:26:30PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Dave Watson davejwatson@...com wrote:
> 
> >>> +static inline __attribute__((always_inline))
> >>> +bool rseq_finish(struct rseq_lock *rlock,
> >>> + intptr_t *p, intptr_t to_write,
> >>> + struct rseq_state start_value)
> > 
> >>> This ABI looks like it will work fine for our use case. I don't think it
> >>> has been mentioned yet, but we may still need multiple asm blocks
> >>> for differing numbers of writes. For example, an array-based freelist push:
> > 
> >>> void push(void *obj) {
> >>> if (index < maxlen) {
> >>> freelist[index++] = obj;
> >>> }
> >>> }
> > 
> >>> would be more efficiently implemented with a two-write rseq_finish:
> > 
> >>> rseq_finish2(&freelist[index], obj, // first write
> >>> &index, index + 1, // second write
> >>> ...);
> > 
> >> Would pairing one rseq_start with two rseq_finish do the trick
> >> there ?
> > 
> > Yes, two rseq_finish works, as long as the extra rseq management overhead
> > is not substantial.
> 
> I've added a commit implementing rseq_finish2() in my rseq volatile
> dev branch. You can fetch it at:
> 
> https://github.com/compudj/linux-percpu-dev/tree/rseq-fallback
> 
> I also have a separate test and benchmark tree in addition to the
> kernel selftests here:
> 
> https://github.com/compudj/rseq-test
> 
> I named the first write a "speculative" write, and the second write
> the "final" write.
> 

Maybe I miss something subtle, but if the first write is only a
"speculative" write, why can't we put it in the rseq critical section
rather than asm block? Like this:

	do_rseq(..., result, targetptr, newval
		{	
			newval = index;
			targetptr = &index;
			if (newval < maxlen)
				freelist[newval++] = obj;
			else
				result = false;
		}

No extra rseq_finish() is needed here, but maybe a little more
"speculative" writes?

> Would you like to extend the test cases to cover your intended use-case ?
> 

Dave, if you are going to write some test cases about your use-cases,
would you also try the away I mentioned above?


Besides, do we allow userspace programs do read-only access to the
memory objects modified by do_rseq(). If so, we have a problem when
there are two writes in a do_rseq()(either in the rseq critical section
or in the asm block), because in current implemetation, these two writes
are unordered, which makes the readers outside a do_rseq() could observe
the ordering of writes differently.

For rseq_finish2(), a simple solution would be making the "final" write
a RELEASE.

Regards,
Boqun

> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)