linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kcov: convert kcov.refcount to refcount

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:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:05:03 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcov: convert kcov.refcount to refcount_t

On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:52:37AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:51 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > > KCOV uses refcounts in a very simple canonical way, so no hidden
> > > ordering implied.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something or refcount_dec_and_test does not in fact
> > > provide ACQUIRE ordering?
> > >
> > > +case 5) - decrement-based RMW ops that return a value
> > > +-----------------------------------------------------
> > > +
> > > +Function changes:
> > > +                atomic_dec_and_test() --> refcount_dec_and_test()
> > > +                atomic_sub_and_test() --> refcount_sub_and_test()
> > > +                no atomic counterpart --> refcount_dec_if_one()
> > > +                atomic_add_unless(&var, -1, 1) --> refcount_dec_not_one(&var)
> > > +
> > > +Memory ordering guarantees changes:
> > > +                fully ordered --> RELEASE ordering + control dependency
> > >
> > > I think that's against the expected refcount guarantees. When I
> > > privatize an  atomic_dec_and_test I would expect that not only stores,
> > > but also loads act on a quiescent object. But loads can hoist outside
> > > of the control dependency.
> > >
> > > Consider the following example, is it the case that the BUG_ON can still fire?
> > >
> > > struct X {
> > >   refcount_t rc; // == 2
> > >   int done1, done2; // == 0
> > > };
> > >
> > > // thread 1:
> > > x->done1 = 1;
> > > if (refcount_dec_and_test(&x->rc))
> > >   BUG_ON(!x->done2);
> > >
> > > // thread 2:
> > > x->done2 = 1;
> > > if (refcount_dec_and_test(&x->rc))
> > >   BUG_ON(!x->done1);
> 
> I'm the one responsible for that refcount_t ordering.
> 
> The rationale for REL+CTRL is that for the final put we want to ensure
> all prior load/store are complete, because any later access could be a
> UAF; consider:
> 
> 
> P0()
> {
> 	x->foo=0;
> 	if (refcount_dec_and_test(&x->rc))
> 		free(x);
> }
> 
> P1()
> {
> 	x->bar=1;
> 	if (refcount_dec_and_test(&->rc))
> 		free(x);
> }
> 
> 
> without release, if would be possible for either (foo,bar) store to
> happen after the free().
> 
> Additionally we also need the CTRL to ensure that the actual free()
> happens _after_ the dec_and_test, freeing early would be bad.
> 
> But after these two requirements, the basic refcounting works.
> 
> > The refcount_dec_and_test guarantees look too weak to me, see the
> > example above. Shouldn't refcount_dec_and_test returning true give the
> > object in fully quiescent state? Why only control dependency? Loads
> > can hoist across control dependency, no?
> 
> Yes, loads can escape like you say.
> 
> Any additional ordering; like the one you have above; are not strictly
> required for the proper functioning of the refcount. Rather, you rely on
> additional ordering and will need to provide this explicitly:
> 
> 
> 	if (refcount_dec_and_text(&x->rc)) {
> 		/*
> 		 * Comment that explains what we order against....
> 		 */
> 		smp_mb__after_atomic();
> 		BUG_ON(!x->done*);
> 		free(x);
> 	}
> 
> 
> Also; these patches explicitly mention that refcount_t is weaker,
> specifically to make people aware of this difference.
> 
> A full smp_mb() (or two) would also be much more expensive on a number
> of platforms and in the vast majority of the cases it is not required.

How about adding smp_rmb() into refcount_dec_and_test()?  That would
give acq+rel semantics, which seems to be what people will expect.  And
it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as a full smp_mb().

Alan Stern