linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] lib: Introduce generic __cmpxchg

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:   Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:32:12 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>
Cc:     "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ralf@...ux-mips.org" <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        "jlayton@...nel.org" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        "linux-mips@...ux-mips.org" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
        "linux@...ck-us.net" <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        "linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "paul.burton@...s.com" <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        "anna.schumaker@...app.com" <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        "jhogan@...nel.org" <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        aryabinin@...tuozzo.com, dvyukov@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] lib: Introduce generic __cmpxchg_u64() and use it
 where needed

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 03:22:15PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 15:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 01:18:46PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:

> > > > My one question (and the reason why I went with cmpxchg() in the
> > > > first place) would be about the overflow behaviour for
> > > > atomic_fetch_inc() and friends. I believe those functions should
> > > > be OK on x86, so that when we overflow the counter, it behaves
> > > > like an unsigned value and wraps back around.  Is that the case
> > > > for all architectures?
> > > > 
> > > > i.e. are atomic_t/atomic64_t always guaranteed to behave like
> > > > u32/u64 on increment?
> > > > 
> > > > I could not find any documentation that explicitly stated that
> > > > they should.
> > > 
> > > Peter, Will, I understand that the atomic_t/atomic64_t ops are
> > > required to wrap per 2's-complement. IIUC the refcount code relies
> > > on this.
> > > 
> > > Can you confirm?
> > 
> > There is quite a bit of core code that hard assumes 2s-complement.
> > Not only for atomics but for any signed integer type. Also see the
> > kernel using -fno-strict-overflow which implies -fwrapv, which
> > defines signed overflow to behave like 2s-complement (and rids us of
> > that particular UB).
> 
> Fair enough, but there have also been bugfixes to explicitly fix unsafe
> C standards assumptions for signed integers. See, for instance commit
> 5a581b367b5d "jiffies: Avoid undefined behavior from signed overflow"
> from Paul McKenney.

Yes, I feel Paul has been to too many C/C++ committee meetings and got
properly paranoid. Which isn't always a bad thing :-)

But for us using -fno-strict-overflow which actually defines signed
overflow, I myself am really not worried. I'm also not sure if KASAN has
been taught about this, or if it will still (incorrectly) warn about UB
for signed types.

> Anyhow, if the atomic maintainers are willing to stand up and state for
> the record that the atomic counters are guaranteed to wrap modulo 2^n
> just like unsigned integers, then I'm happy to take Paul's patch.

I myself am certainly relying on it.