linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 3/7 RESEND] xbitmap: add more operations

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:   Sun, 24 Dec 2017 15:31:28 +0800
From:   Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        willy@...radead.org
CC:     virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        qemu-devel@...gnu.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mst@...hat.com,
        mhocko@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mawilcox@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 3/7 RESEND] xbitmap: add more operations

On 12/23/2017 10:33 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>> +	bitmap = rcu_dereference_raw(*slot);
>>>> +	if (!bitmap) {
>>>> +		bitmap = this_cpu_xchg(ida_bitmap, NULL);
>>>> +		if (!bitmap)
>>>> +			return -ENOMEM;
>>> I can't understand this. I can understand if it were
>>>
>>>    BUG_ON(!bitmap);
>>>
>>> because you called xb_preload().
>>>
>>> But
>>>
>>> 	/*
>>> 	 * Regular test 2
>>> 	 * set bit 2000, 2001, 2040
>>> 	 * Next 1 in [0, 2048)		--> 2000
>>> 	 * Next 1 in [2000, 2002)	--> 2000
>>> 	 * Next 1 in [2002, 2041)	--> 2040
>>> 	 * Next 1 in [2002, 2040)	--> none
>>> 	 * Next 0 in [2000, 2048)	--> 2002
>>> 	 * Next 0 in [2048, 2060)	--> 2048
>>> 	 */
>>> 	xb_preload(GFP_KERNEL);
>>> 	assert(!xb_set_bit(&xb1, 2000));
>>> 	assert(!xb_set_bit(&xb1, 2001));
>>> 	assert(!xb_set_bit(&xb1, 2040));
>> [...]
>>> 	xb_preload_end();
>>>
>>> you are not calling xb_preload() prior to each xb_set_bit() call.
>>> This means that, if each xb_set_bit() is not surrounded with
>>> xb_preload()/xb_preload_end(), there is possibility of hitting
>>> this_cpu_xchg(ida_bitmap, NULL) == NULL.
>> This is just a lazy test.  We "know" that the bits in the range 1024-2047
>> will all land in the same bitmap, so there's no need to preload for each
>> of them.
> Testcases also serves as how to use that API.
> Assuming such thing leads to incorrect usage.

If callers are aware that the bits that they going to record locate in 
the same bitmap, I think they should also perform the xb_ APIs with only 
one preload. So the test cases here have shown them a correct example. 
We can probably add some comments above to explain this.


Best,
Wei