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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2236FBA76BA1254E88B949DDB74E612BA4B944B3@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:41:38 +0000
From:   "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.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, Jan 21, 2019 at 11:05:03AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > 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().
> 
> Yes, that's a very good suggestion.
> 
> I suppose we can add smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() on the true branch.
> Then it reall does become rel_acq.
> 
> A wee something like so (I couldn't find an arm64 refcount, even though
> I have distinct memories of talk about it).
> 
> This isn't compiled, and obviously needs comment/documentation updates
> to go along with it.
> 
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h | 9 ++++++++-
>  lib/refcount.c                  | 7 ++++++-
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h
> index dbaed55c1c24..6f7a1eb345b4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h
> @@ -74,9 +74,16 @@ bool refcount_sub_and_test(unsigned int i, refcount_t *r)
> 
>  static __always_inline __must_check bool refcount_dec_and_test(refcount_t *r)
>  {
> -	return GEN_UNARY_SUFFIXED_RMWcc(LOCK_PREFIX "decl",
> +	bool ret = GEN_UNARY_SUFFIXED_RMWcc(LOCK_PREFIX "decl",
> 
> 	REFCOUNT_CHECK_LT_ZERO,
>  					r-
> >refs.counter, e, "cx");
> +
> +	if (ret) {
> +		smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
> +		return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	return false;
>  }

Actually as I started to do this, any reason why the change here only for dec_and_test and not
for sub_and _test also? Should not the arch. specific logic follow the generic?

Best Regards,
Elena.