linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] kasan: allow kasan_check_read/write() to accept pointers to volatiles

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: <CACT4Y+ZqKRdSvpmoRGfZSbmMh3n4yDb5e42+9MLr8qGYYQ+1TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:15:44 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] kasan: allow kasan_check_read/write() to accept
 pointers to volatiles

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 11:15:31AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> >> Currently kasan_check_read/write() accept 'const void*', make them
>> >> accept 'const volatile void*'. This is required for instrumentation
>> >> of atomic operations and there is just no reason to not allow that.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
>> >> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> >> Cc: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
>> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> >> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
>> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> >> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> >> Cc: x86@...nel.org
>> >> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
>> >> Cc: kasan-dev@...glegroups.com
>> >
>> > Looks sane to me, and I can confirm this doesn't advervsely affect
>> > arm64. FWIW:
>> >
>> > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> >
>> > Mark.
>>
>>
>> Great! Thanks for testing.
>>
>> Ingo, what are your thoughts? Are you taking this to locking tree? When?
>
> Yeah, it all looks pretty clean to me too. I've applied the first three patches to
> the locking tree, but did some minor stylistic cleanups to the first patch to
> harmonize the style of the code - which made the later patches not apply cleanly.
>
> Mind sending the remaining patches against the locking tree, tip:locking/core?
> (Please also add in all the acks you got.)

Mailed v5 rebased on tip:locking/core (now only 4 patches).
Added Acked/Reviewed-By that I got.

> This should also give people (Peter, Linus?) a last minute chance to object to my
> suggestion of increasing the linecount in patch #1:
>
>  0f2376eb0ff8: locking/atomic/x86: Un-macro-ify atomic ops implementation
>
>  arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h      | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  arch/x86/include/asm/atomic64_32.h | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  arch/x86/include/asm/atomic64_64.h | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  3 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>
> ... to me the end result looks much more readable despite the +70 lines of code,
> but if anyone feels strongly about this please holler!
>
> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo