linux-kernel - Re: Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM

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: <20190418125412.GA10817@andrea>
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:54:12 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        LKMM Maintainers -- Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Daniel Kroening <kroening@...ox.ac.uk>,
        Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Adding plain accesses and detecting data races in the LKMM

> Another question is "should the kernel permit smp_mb__{before,after}*()
> anywhere other than immediately before or after the primitive being
> strengthened?"

Mmh, I do think that keeping these barriers "immediately before or after
the primitive being strengthened" is a good practice (readability, and
all that), if this is what you're suggesting.

However, a first auditing of the callsites showed that this practice is
in fact not always applied, notably... ;-)

	kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h:sync_exp_work_done
	kernel/sched/cpupri.c:cpupri_set

So there appear, at least, to be some exceptions/reasons for not always
following it?  Thoughts?

BTW, while auditing these callsites, I've stumbled across the following
snippet (from kernel/futex.c):

	*futex = newval;
	sys_futex(WAKE, futex);
          futex_wake(futex);
          smp_mb(); (B)
	  if (waiters)
	    ...

where B is actually (c.f., futex_get_mm()):

	atomic_inc(...->mm_count);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();

It seems worth mentioning the fact that, AFAICT, this sequence does not
necessarily provide ordering when plain accesses are involved: consider,
e.g., the following variant of the snippet:

	A:*x = 1;
	/*
	 * I've "ignored" the syscall, which should provide
	 * (at least) a compiler barrier...
	 */
	atomic_inc(u);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	B:r0 = *y;

On x86, AFAICT, the compiler can do this:

	atomic_inc(u);
	A:*x = 1;
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	B:r0 = *y;

(the implementation of atomic_inc() contains no compiler barrier), then
the CPU can "reorder" A and B (smp_mb__after_atomic() being #defined to
a compiler barrier).

The mips implementation seems also affected by such "reorderings": I am
not familiar with this implementation but, AFAICT, it does not enforce
ordering from A to B in the following snippet:

	A:*x = 1;
	atomic_inc(u);
	smp_mb__after_atomic();
	B:WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);

when CONFIG_WEAK_ORDERING=y, CONFIG_WEAK_REORDERING_BEYOND_LLSC=n.

Do these observations make sense to you?  Thoughts?

  Andrea