linux-kernel - [PATCH 15/19] mm: Kill off ACCESS

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: <1508792849-3115-15-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:07:25 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     mingo@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        will.deacon@....com, mark.rutland@....com, snitzer@...hat.com,
        thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        davem@...emloft.net, shuah@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        tj@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH 15/19] mm: Kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

For several reasons, it is desirable to use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in
preference to ACCESS_ONCE(), and new code is expected to use one of the
former. So far, there's been no reason to change most existing uses of
ACCESS_ONCE(), as these aren't currently harmful.

However, for some features it is necessary to instrument reads and
writes separately, which is not possible with ACCESS_ONCE(). This
distinction is critical to correct operation.

It's possible to transform the bulk of kernel code using the Coccinelle
script below. However, this doesn't handle comments, leaving references
to ACCESS_ONCE() instances which have been removed. As a preparatory
step, this patch converts the mm code and comments to use
{READ,WRITE}_ONCE() consistently.

----
virtual patch

@ depends on patch @
expression E1, E2;
@@

- ACCESS_ONCE(E1) = E2
+ WRITE_ONCE(E1, E2)

@ depends on patch @
expression E;
@@

- ACCESS_ONCE(E)
+ READ_ONCE(E)
----

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
---
 mm/memory.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index a728bed16c20..cae514e7dcfc 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -3891,9 +3891,9 @@ static int handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 		/*
 		 * some architectures can have larger ptes than wordsize,
 		 * e.g.ppc44x-defconfig has CONFIG_PTE_64BIT=y and
-		 * CONFIG_32BIT=y, so READ_ONCE or ACCESS_ONCE cannot guarantee
-		 * atomic accesses.  The code below just needs a consistent
-		 * view for the ifs and we later double check anyway with the
+		 * CONFIG_32BIT=y, so READ_ONCE cannot guarantee atomic
+		 * accesses.  The code below just needs a consistent view
+		 * for the ifs and we later double check anyway with the
 		 * ptl lock held. So here a barrier will do.
 		 */
 		barrier();
-- 
2.5.2