linux-kernel - Re: READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops))

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: <20191216114724.GL2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:47:24 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: READ_ONCE() + STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG == :/ (was Re: [GIT PULL]
 Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.5-2 tag (topic/kasan-bitops))

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:28:06AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> However, enabling this for 32-bit ARM is total carnage; as Linus mentioned,
> a whole bunch of code appears to be relying on atomic 64-bit access of
> READ_ONCE(); the perf ring buffer, io_uring, the scheduler, pm_runtime,
> cpuidle, ... :(
> 
> Unfortunately, at least some of these *do* look like bugs, but I can't see
> how we can fix them, not least because the first two are user ABI afaict. It
> may also be that in practice we get 2x32-bit stores, and that works out fine
> when storing a 32-bit virtual address. I'm not sure what (if anything) the
> compiler guarantees in these cases.

Perf does indeed have a (known) problem here for the head/tail values.
Last time we looked at that nobody could really come up with a sane
solution that wouldn't break something.

I'll try and dig out that thread. Perhaps casting the value to 'unsigned
long' internally might work, I forgot the details.