linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 15/19] locking/rwsem: Adaptive disabling of reader optimistic spinning

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, 6 Jun 2019 10:03:15 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>, dvyukov@...gle.com,
        glider@...gle.com, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 15/19] locking/rwsem: Adaptive disabling of reader
 optimistic spinning

On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:52:15PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:19 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Urgh, that's another things that's been on the TODO list for a long long
> > time, write code to verify the alignment of allocations :/ I'm
> > suspecting quite a lot of that goes wrong all over the place.
> 
> On x86, we only guarantee 8-byte alignment from things like kmalloc(), iirc.

Oh sure, and I'm not proposing to change that. I was more thinking of
having a GCC plugin that verifies, for every ptr assignment:

	ptr = foo;

that the actual alignment maches:

	assert(!(uintptr_t)ptr % __alignof(*ptr));

That would catch bugs like:

struct bar {
	int ponies;
	int peaches __smp_cacheline_aligned;
};

	struct bar *barp = kmalloc(sizeof(barp, GFP_KERNEL);

Blatantly violating alignment can't be right; either the alignment
constraints put on the data structures are not important and they should
be fixed, or we should respect them and fix the allocation, either way,
we should not silently violate things like we do today.