linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH locking/Documentation 1/2] Add note of release-acquire store vulnerability

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160930090030.GF5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:00:30 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        gg@...ns.programming.kicks-ass.net
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com, stern@...land.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH locking/Documentation 1/2] Add note of release-acquire
 store vulnerability

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:18:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:44:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:10:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	P0(int *x, int *y)
> > > > > 	{
> > > > > 		WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > > > > 		smp_wmb();
> > > > > 		smp_store_release(y, 1);
> > > > > 	}
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	P1(int *y)
> > > > > 	{
> > > > > 		WRITE_ONCE(*y, 2);
> > > > > 	}
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	P2(int *x, int *y)
> > > > > 	{
> > > > > 		r1 = smp_load_acquire(y);
> > > > > 		r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > > > > 	}
> > > > > 
> > > > > Both ARM and powerpc allow the "after the dust settles" outcome (r1=2 &&
> > > > > r2=0), as does the current version of the early prototype Linux-kernel
> > > > 
> > > > And the above needs to be (r1!=2 || r2 != 0)...  Sigh!
> > > 
> > > Make that (y==2 && r1==2 && r2 == 0).
> > > 
> > > Any further bids?  ;-)
> > 
> > Isn't that the trivial P1,P2,P0 order again?
> 
> I don't believe so.  Wouldn't the final P0 would leave y==1?

Ah, indeed. I was forgetting to 'execute' P0 entirely.