linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] fscache: Fix race in fscache_op_complete() due to split atomic

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: <4283.1543416204@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:43:24 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org,
        Kiran Kumar Modukuri <kiran.modukuri@...il.com>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, sandeen@...hat.com,
        linux-cachefs@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fscache: Fix race in fscache_op_complete() due to split atomic_sub & read

Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Fix this by using atomic_sub_return() instead of two calls.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Seems a case for atomic_sub_return_relaxed()... why not?
> > > > 
> > > > Ummm...  In that case, should it be atomic_sub_return_release()?
> > > 
> > > Hard to tell for me: your diff./changelog is all I know about fs-cache
> > > ... (and this suggests -no-, given that atomic_sub() and atomic_read()
> > > provide no ordering...); good question though. ;-)
> > 
> > Yeah, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be stricter than 'relaxed'.
> > It's kind of like an unlock/release operation, so I think 'release' is
> > probably the minimum requirement.
> 
> Sure.  My point was: those operations are currently not atomic _and_
> they provide no ordering; I think that the above commit message does
> a good work in explaining *why* we need atomicity, but can't say the
> same for the memory-ordering requirement.

Having discussed it with Paul McKenney and thought about it some more, I think
relaxed is probably okay since there isn't a pair of variables that need
ordering.

David