linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel parameter

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: <20191121195634.GV4097@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 20:56:34 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
 kernel parameter

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:51:03AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> Can we really not just change the lock asm to use 32-bit accesses for
> set_bit(), etc?  Sure, it will fail if the bit index is greater than
> 2^32, but that seems nuts.

There are 64bit architectures that do exactly that: Alpha, IA64.

And because of the byte 'optimization' from x86 we already could not
rely on word atomicity (we actually play games with multi-bit atomicity
for PG_waiters and clear_bit_unlock_is_negative_byte).

Also, there's a fun paper on the properties of mixed size atomic
operations for when you want to hurt your brain real bad:

  https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/popl17/mixed-size.pdf

_If_ we're going to change the bitops interface, I would propose we
change it to u32 and mandate every operation is indeed 32bit wide.