linux-kernel - Re: framebuffer corruption due to overlapping stp instructions on arm64

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: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1808081215120.31259@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 12:21:31 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Sealey <neko@...uhatsu.net>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: framebuffer corruption due to overlapping stp instructions on
 arm64



On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, Catalin Marinas wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 02:26:11PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Mikulas Patocka
> > > Sent: 08 August 2018 14:47
> > ...
> > > The problem on ARM is that I see data corruption when the overlapping
> > > unaligned writes are done just by a single core.
> > 
> > Is this a sequence of unaligned writes (that shouldn't modify the
> > same physical locations) or an aligned write followed by an
> > unaligned one that updates part of the earlier write.
> > (Or the opposite order?)
> 
> In the memcpy() case, there can be a sequence of unaligned writes but
> they would not modify the same byte (so no overlapping address at the
> byte level).

They do modify the same byte, but with the same value. Suppose that you 
want to copy a piece of data that is between 8 and 16 bytes long. You can 
do this:

add src_end, src, len
add dst_end, dst, len
ldr x0, [src]
ldr x1, [src_end - 8]
str x0, [dst]
str x1, [dst_end - 8]

The ARM64 memcpy uses this trick heavily in order to reduce branching, and 
this is what makes the PCIe controller choke.

Mikulas