linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3] mm: use READ_ONCE in page_cpupid_xchg

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: <ceb6c990-6d88-dc79-b494-432ed838f3c9@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:40:47 +0100
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] mm: use READ_ONCE in page_cpupid_xchg_last()

On 12/07/2016 10:29 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/07/2016 09:58 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 07-12-16 09:48:52, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2016 09:43 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Tue 06-12-16 09:53:14, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>>>>> A compiler could re-read "old_flags" from the memory location after reading
>>>>> and calculation "flags" and passes a newer value into the cmpxchg making 
>>>>> the comparison succeed while it should actually fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  mm/mmzone.c | 2 +-
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/mmzone.c b/mm/mmzone.c
>>>>> index 5652be8..e0b698e 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/mmzone.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/mmzone.c
>>>>> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ int page_cpupid_xchg_last(struct page *page, int cpupid)
>>>>>  	int last_cpupid;
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	do {
>>>>> -		old_flags = flags = page->flags;
>>>>> +		old_flags = flags = READ_ONCE(page->flags);
>>>>>  		last_cpupid = page_cpupid_last(page);
>>>>
>>>> what prevents compiler from doing?
>>>> 		old_flags = READ_ONCE(page->flags);
>>>> 		flags = READ_ONCE(page->flags);
>>>
>>> AFAIK, READ_ONCE tells the compiler that page->flags is volatile. It
>>> can't read from volatile location more times than being told?
>>
>> But those are two different variables which we assign to so what
>> prevents the compiler from applying READ_ONCE on each of them
>> separately?
> 
> I would naively expect that it's assigned to flags first, and then from
> flags to old_flags. But I don't know exactly the C standard evaluation
> rules that apply here.
> 
>> Anyway, this could be addressed easily by
> 
> Yes, that way there should be no doubt.

That change would make it clearer, but the code is correct anyway,
as assignments in C are done from right to left, so 
old_flags = flags = READ_ONCE(page->flags);

is equivalent to 

flags = READ_ONCE(page->flags);
old_flags = flags;


> 
>> diff --git a/mm/mmzone.c b/mm/mmzone.c
>> index 5652be858e5e..b4e093dd24c1 100644
>> --- a/mm/mmzone.c
>> +++ b/mm/mmzone.c
>> @@ -102,10 +102,10 @@ int page_cpupid_xchg_last(struct page *page, int cpupid)
>>  	int last_cpupid;
>>  
>>  	do {
>> -		old_flags = flags = page->flags;
>> +		old_flags = READ_ONCE(page->flags);
>>  		last_cpupid = page_cpupid_last(page);
>>  
>> -		flags &= ~(LAST_CPUPID_MASK << LAST_CPUPID_PGSHIFT);
>> +		flags = old_flags & ~(LAST_CPUPID_MASK << LAST_CPUPID_PGSHIFT);
>>  		flags |= (cpupid & LAST_CPUPID_MASK) << LAST_CPUPID_PGSHIFT;
>>  	} while (unlikely(cmpxchg(&page->flags, old_flags, flags) != old_flags));
>>  
>>
>>>> Or this doesn't matter?
>>>
>>> I think it would matter.
>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>  		flags &= ~(LAST_CPUPID_MASK << LAST_CPUPID_PGSHIFT);
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 1.8.3.1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>