linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in _

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]

Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:53:17 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+e58112d71f77113ddb7b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        aarcange@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        christian@...uner.io, davem@...emloft.net, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        elena.reshetova@...el.com, guro@...com, hch@...radead.org,
        james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com, jglisse@...hat.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, ldv@...linux.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        luto@...capital.net, mhocko@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        namit@...are.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        wad@...omium.org
Subject: Re: WARNING in __mmdrop

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:05:17AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:17:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > So even PTE is read speculatively before reading invalidate_count (only in
> > the case of invalidate_count is zero). The spinlock has guaranteed that we
> > won't read any stale PTEs.
> 
> I'm sorry I just do not get the argument.
> If you want to order two reads you need an smp_rmb
> or stronger between them executed on the same CPU.

No, that is only for unlocked algorithms.

In this case the spinlock provides all the 'or stronger' ordering
required.

For invalidate_count going 0->1 the spin_lock ensures that any
following PTE update during invalidation does not order before the
spin_lock()

While holding the lock and observing 1 in invalidate_count the PTE
values might be changing, but are ignored. C's rules about sequencing
make this safe.

For invalidate_count going 1->0 the spin_unlock ensures that any
preceeding PTE update during invalidation does not order after the
spin_unlock

While holding the lock and observing 0 in invalidating_count the PTE
values cannot be changing.

Jason