linux-kernel - Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mips/atomic: Fix loongson_llsc

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, 25 Apr 2019 09:33:48 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     huangpei@...ngson.cn
Cc:     Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        "stern@...land.harvard.edu" <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        "akiyks@...il.com" <akiyks@...il.com>,
        "andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com" 
        <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        "boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "dlustig@...dia.com" <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        "dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "j.alglave@....ac.uk" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget@...ia.fr" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        "npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "paulmck@...ux.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhc@...ote.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mips/atomic: Fix loongson_llsc_mb() wreckage


A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:58:50PM +0800, huangpei@...ngson.cn wrote:
> In my opinion. patch 2/3 is about Loongson's bug, and patch 4/5 is another theme.

Agreed; it's just that looking at the MIPS code to fix 4/5 made me trip
over this stuff.

> Let me explain the bug more specific:
> 
> the bug ONLY matters in following situation:
> 
> #. more than one cpu (assume cpu A and B) doing ll/sc on same shared
> var V
> 
> #. speculative memory access from A cause A erroneously succeed sc
> operation, since the erroneously successful sc operation violate the
> coherence protocol. (here coherence protocol means the rules that CPU
> follow to implement ll/sc right)
> 
> #. B succeed sc operation too, but this sc operation is right both
> logically and follow the coherence protocol, and makes A's sc wrong
> logically since only ONE sc operation can succeed.

(I know your coherence protocol is probably more complicated than MESI,
but bear with me)

So A speculatively gets V's line in Exclusive mode, speculates the Lock
flag is still there and completes the Store. This speculative store then
leaks out and violates MESI because there _should_ only be one Exclusive
owner of a line (B).

Something like that?

> If it is not LL/SC but other memory access from B on V, A's ll/sc can
> follow the atomic semantics even if A violate the coherence protocol
> in the same situation.

*shudder*...

  C atomic-set

  {
	  atomic_set(v, 1);
  }

  P1(atomic_t *v)
  {
	  atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0);
  }

  P2(atomic_t *v)
  {
	  atomic_set(v, 0);
  }

  exists
  (v=2)

So that one will still work? (that is, v=2 is forbidden)

> In one word， the bug only affect local cpu‘s ll/sc operation, and
> affect MP system.

Because it is a coherence issue, triggered by a reorder. OK.

> PS:
> 
> If local_t is only ll/sc manipulated by current CPU， then no need fix it.

It _should_ be CPU local, but this was not at all clear from reading the
original changelog nor the comment with loongson_llsc_mb().