linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] random: silence compiler warnings and fix race

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]

Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:44:38 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: silence compiler warnings and fix race

On 2017-06-19 22:55:37 [+0200], Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > ehm. You sure? I simply delayed the lock-dropping _after_ the state
> > variable was been modified. So it was basically what your patch did
> > except it was unlocked later…
> 
> Yes, I'm sure. You moved the call to invalidate_batched_entropy() to
> be after the assignment of crng_init. However, the call to
> invalidate_batched_entropy() must be made _before_ the assignment of
> crng_init.

so you need to find a another way then. Doing the assignment after
dropping the lock opens another race.

> >> > Are use about that? I am not sure that the gcc will inline "crng_init"
> >> > read twice. It is not a local variable. READ_ONCE() is usually used
> >> > where gcc could cache a memory access but you do not want this. But hey!
> >> > If someone knows better I am here to learn.
> >>
> >> The whole purpose is that I _want_ it to cache the memory access so
> >> that it is _not_ inlined. So, based on your understanding, it does
> >> exactly what I intended it to do. The reason is that I'd like to avoid
> >> a lock imbalance, which could happen if the read is inlined.
> >
> > So it was good as it was which means you can drop that READ_ONCE().
> 
> Except READ_ONCE ensures that the compiler will never inline it, so it
> actually needs to stay.

I don't think the compiler is allowed to inline it the way you describe
it. This would render any assignment to local variable useless. Also
the READ_ONCE creates worse code in this case (because the read can not
be delayed).

Sebastian