linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates

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:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:41:59 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix: trace sched switch start/stop racy updates

----- On Aug 16, 2019, at 1:04 PM, rostedt rostedt@...dmis.org wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:48:59 +0100
> Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
> 
>> On 16/08/2019 17:25, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> >> Also, write and read to/from those variables should be done with
>> >> WRITE_ONCE() and READ_ONCE(), given that those are read within tracing
>> >> probes without holding the sched_register_mutex.
>> >>  
>> > 
>> > I understand the READ_ONCE() but is the WRITE_ONCE() truly necessary?
>> > It's done while holding the mutex. It's not that critical of a path,
>> > and makes the code look ugly.
>> >   
>> 
>> I seem to recall something like locking primitives don't protect you from
>> store tearing / invented stores, so if you can have concurrent readers
>> using READ_ONCE(), there should be a WRITE_ONCE() on the writer side, even
>> if it's done in a critical section.
> 
> But for this, it really doesn't matter. The READ_ONCE() is for going
> from 0->1 or 1->0 any other change is the same as 1.

Let's consider this "invented store" scenario (even though as I noted in my
earlier email, I suspect this particular instance of the code does not appear
to fit the requirements to generate this in the wild with current compilers):

intial state:

sched_tgid_ref = 10;

Thread A                                Thread B

registration                            tracepoint probe
sched_tgid_ref++
  - compiler decides to invent a
    store: sched_tgid_ref = 0
                                        READ_ONCE(sched_tgid_ref) -> observes 0,
                                        but should really see either 10 or 11.
  - compiler stores 11 into
    sched_tgid_ref

This kind of scenario could cause spurious missing data in the middle of a
trace caused by another user trying to increment the reference count, which
is really unexpected.

A similar scenario can happen for "store tearing" if the compiler decides
to break the store into many stores close to the 16-bit overflow value when
updating a 32-bit reference count. Spurious 1 -> 0 -> 1 transitions could be
observed by readers.

> When we enable trace events, we start recording the tasks comms such
> that we can possibly map them to the pids. When we disable trace
> events, we stop recording the comms so that we don't overwrite the
> cache when not needed. Note, if more than the max cache of tasks are
> recorded during a session, we are likely to miss comms anyway.
> 
> Thinking about this more, the READ_ONCE() and WRTIE_ONCE() are not even
> needed, because this is just a best effort anyway.

If you choose not to use READ_ONCE(), then the "load tearing" issue can
cause similar spurious 1 -> 0 -> 1 transitions near 16-bit counter
overflow as described above. The "Invented load" also becomes an issue,
because the compiler could use the loaded value for a branch, and re-load
that value between two branches which are expected to use the same value,
effectively generating a corrupted state.

I think we need a statement about whether READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE should
be used in this kind of situation, or if we are fine dealing with the
awkward compiler side-effects when they will occur.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> The only real fix was to move the check into the mutex protect area,
> because that can cause a real bug if there was a race.
> 
> {
> -	bool sched_register = (!sched_cmdline_ref && !sched_tgid_ref);
> +	bool sched_register;
> +
> 	mutex_lock(&sched_register_mutex);
> +	sched_register = (!sched_cmdline_ref && !sched_tgid_ref);
> 
> Thus, I'd like to see a v2 of this patch without the READ_ONCE() or
> WRITE_ONCE() added.
> 
> -- Steve

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com