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: <365498072.8664.1470971438957.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 03:10:38 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.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 Aug 11, 2016, at 9:28 PM, Boqun Feng boqun.feng@...il.com wrote:

> 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?

This won't work unfortunately. The speculative stores need to be
between the rseq_event_counter comparison instruction in the rseq_finish
asm sequence and the final store. The ip fixup is really needed for
correctness of speculative stores. The sequence number scheme only works
for loads.

Putting it in the C code between rseq_start and rseq_finish would lead
to races such as:

thread A                                thread B
rseq_start
<preempted>
                                        <sched in>
                                        rseq_start
                                        freelist[offset + 1] = obj
                                        rseq_finish
                                           offset++
                                        <preempted>
<sched in>
freelist[newval + 1] = obj  <--- corrupts the list content.

<snip>

> 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.

Indeed, we would need a release semantic for the final store here if this
is the common use. Or we could duplicate the "flavors" of rseq_finish2 and
add a rseq_finish2_release. We should find a way to eliminate code duplication
there. I suspect we'll end up doing macros.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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

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