linux-kernel - Re: block: be more careful about status in __bio_chain

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]

Message-ID: <CAMeeMh-6KMLgriX_7KT52ynjBMyT9yDWSMKv6YXW+yDpvv0=wA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 22:56:42 -0400
From:   John Dorminy <jdorminy@...hat.com>
To:     Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: block: be more careful about status in __bio_chain_endio

Having studied the code in question more thoroughly, my first email's
scenario can't occur, I believe. bio_put() contains a
atomic_dec_and_test(), which (according to
Documentation/atomic_t.txt), having a return value, are fully ordered
and therefore impose a general memory barrier. A general memory
barrier means that no value set before bio_put() may be observed
afterwards, if I accurately understand
Documentation/memory_barriers.txt. Thus, the scenario I imagined, with
a load from inside __bio_chain_endio() being visible in bi_end_io(),
cannot occur.

However, the second email's scenario, of a compiler making two stores
out of a conditional store, is still accurate according to my
understanding. I continue to believe setting parent->bi_status needs
to be a WRITE_ONCE() and any reading of parent->bi_status before
bio_put() needs to be at least a READ_ONCE(). The last thing in that
email is wrong for the same reason that the first email couldn't
happen: the bio_put() general barrier means later accesses to the
field from a single thread will freshly read the field and thereby not
get an incorrectly cached value.

As a concrete proposal, I believe either of the following work and fix
the race NeilB described, as well as the compiler (or CPU) race I
described:

 -     if (!parent->bi_status)
 -               parent->bi_status = bio->bi_status;
 +     if (bio->bi_status)
 +               WRITE_ONCE(parent->bi_status, bio->bi_status);

--or--

 -     if (!parent->bi_status)
 -               parent->bi_status = bio->bi_status;
 +     if (!READ_ONCE(parent->bi_status) && bio->bi_status)
 +               WRITE_ONCE(parent->bi_status, bio->bi_status);

I believe the second of these might, but is not guaranteed to,
preserve the first error observed in a child; I believe if you want to
definitely save the first error you need an atomic.