| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20170703171420.GC2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:14:20 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, dave@...olabs.net, tj@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, will.deacon@....com,
peterz@...radead.org, parri.andrea@...il.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, coreteam@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/26] netfilter: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with
lock/unlock pair
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 10:39:49AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2017, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> > As we want to remove spin_unlock_wait() and replace it with explicit
> > spin_lock()/spin_unlock() calls, we can use this to simplify the
> > locking.
> >
> > In addition:
> > - Reading nf_conntrack_locks_all needs ACQUIRE memory ordering.
> > - The new code avoids the backwards loop.
> >
> > Only slightly tested, I did not manage to trigger calls to
> > nf_conntrack_all_lock().
> >
> > Fixes: b16c29191dc8
> > Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> > Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
> > Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
> > Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
> > ---
> > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> > index e847dba..1193565 100644
> > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> > @@ -96,19 +96,24 @@ static struct conntrack_gc_work conntrack_gc_work;
> >
> > void nf_conntrack_lock(spinlock_t *lock) __acquires(lock)
> > {
> > + /* 1) Acquire the lock */
> > spin_lock(lock);
> > - while (unlikely(nf_conntrack_locks_all)) {
> > - spin_unlock(lock);
> >
> > - /*
> > - * Order the 'nf_conntrack_locks_all' load vs. the
> > - * spin_unlock_wait() loads below, to ensure
> > - * that 'nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock' is indeed held:
> > - */
> > - smp_rmb(); /* spin_lock(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock) */
> > - spin_unlock_wait(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock);
> > - spin_lock(lock);
> > - }
> > + /* 2) read nf_conntrack_locks_all, with ACQUIRE semantics */
> > + if (likely(smp_load_acquire(&nf_conntrack_locks_all) == false))
> > + return;
>
> As far as I can tell, this read does not need to have ACQUIRE
> semantics.
>
> You need to guarantee that two things can never happen:
>
> (1) We read nf_conntrack_locks_all == false, and this routine's
> critical section for nf_conntrack_locks[i] runs after the
> (empty) critical section for that lock in
> nf_conntrack_all_lock().
>
> (2) We read nf_conntrack_locks_all == true, and this routine's
> critical section for nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock runs before
> the critical section in nf_conntrack_all_lock().
>
> In fact, neither one can happen even if smp_load_acquire() is replaced
> with READ_ONCE(). The reason is simple enough, using this property of
> spinlocks:
>
> If critical section CS1 runs before critical section CS2 (for
> the same lock) then: (a) every write coming before CS1's
> spin_unlock() will be visible to any read coming after CS2's
> spin_lock(), and (b) no write coming after CS2's spin_lock()
> will be visible to any read coming before CS1's spin_unlock().
>
> Thus for (1), assuming the critical sections run in the order mentioned
> above, since nf_conntrack_all_lock() writes to nf_conntrack_locks_all
> before releasing nf_conntrack_locks[i], and since nf_conntrack_lock()
> acquires nf_conntrack_locks[i] before reading nf_conntrack_locks_all,
> by (a) the read will always see the write.
>
> Similarly for (2), since nf_conntrack_all_lock() acquires
> nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock before writing to nf_conntrack_locks_all,
> and since nf_conntrack_lock() reads nf_conntrack_locks_all before
> releasing nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock, by (b) the read cannot see the
> write.
And the Linux kernel memory model (https://lwn.net/Articles/718628/
and https://lwn.net/Articles/720550/) agrees with Alan. Here is
a litmus test, which emulates spin_lock() with xchg_acquire() and
spin_unlock() with smp_store_release():
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C C-ManfredSpraul-L1G1xchgnr.litmus
(* Expected result: Never. *)
{
}
P0(int *nfcla, spinlock_t *gbl, int *gbl_held, spinlock_t *lcl, int *lcl_held)
{
/* Acquire local lock. */
r10 = xchg_acquire(lcl, 1);
r1 = READ_ONCE(*nfcla);
if (r1) {
smp_store_release(lcl, 0);
r11 = xchg_acquire(gbl, 1);
r12 = xchg_acquire(lcl, 1);
smp_store_release(gbl, 0);
}
r2 = READ_ONCE(*gbl_held);
WRITE_ONCE(*lcl_held, 1);
WRITE_ONCE(*lcl_held, 0);
smp_store_release(lcl, 0);
}
P1(int *nfcla, spinlock_t *gbl, int *gbl_held, spinlock_t *lcl, int *lcl_held)
{
/* Acquire global lock. */
r10 = xchg_acquire(gbl, 1);
WRITE_ONCE(*nfcla, 1);
r11 = xchg_acquire(lcl, 1);
smp_store_release(lcl, 0);
r2 = READ_ONCE(*lcl_held);
WRITE_ONCE(*gbl_held, 1);
WRITE_ONCE(*gbl_held, 0);
smp_store_release(gbl, 0);
}
exists
((0:r2=1 \/ 1:r2=1) /\ 0:r10=0 /\ 0:r11=0 /\ 0:r12=0 /\ 1:r10=0 /\ 1:r11=0)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The memory model says that the forbidden state does not happen:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States 25
0:r10=0; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=1; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=1; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=1; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=1; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=1; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=1; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=1; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=1; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=1; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=1; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=1; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=0; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=1; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=1; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=1; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=1; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=1; 0:r11=0; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=1; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=1; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=0; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=1;
0:r10=1; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=0;
0:r10=1; 0:r11=1; 0:r12=0; 0:r2=1; 1:r10=0; 1:r11=0; 1:r2=1;
No
Witnesses
Positive: 0 Negative: 260
Condition exists ((0:r2=1 \/ 1:r2=1) /\ 0:r10=0 /\ 0:r11=0 /\ 0:r12=0 /\ 1:r10=0 /\ 1:r11=0)
Observation C-ManfredSpraul-L1G1xchgnr Never 0 260
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note the line "Positive: 0 Negative: 260", in other words, there
were no scenarios that matched the "exists" clause and 260 that did
not match.)
Of course, testing is also required. ;-)
Manfred, any objections to my changing your patch as Alan suggests?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists