linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] skbuff: fix a data race in skb_queue

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: <CANpmjNM+=mm0BAj=a2zh3ameKPxDaOb59r4L7c34uchcPAqbCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:35:20 +0100
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] skbuff: fix a data race in skb_queue_len()

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:10, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/6/20 8:38 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 01:40:29PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote:
> >> -    list->qlen--;
> >> +    WRITE_ONCE(list->qlen, list->qlen - 1);
> >
> > Sorry I'm a bit late to the party here, but this immediately jumped out.
> > This generates worse code with a bigger race in some sense:
> >
> > list->qlen-- is:
> >
> >    0:   83 6f 10 01             subl   $0x1,0x10(%rdi)
> >
> > whereas WRITE_ONCE(list->qlen, list->qlen - 1) is:
> >
> >    0:   8b 47 10                mov    0x10(%rdi),%eax
> >    3:   83 e8 01                sub    $0x1,%eax
> >    6:   89 47 10                mov    %eax,0x10(%rdi)
> >
> > Are you sure that's what we want?
> >
> > Jason
> >
>
>
> Unfortunately we do not have ADD_ONCE() or something like that.
>
> Sure, on x86 we could get much better code generation.
>
> If we agree a READ_ONCE() was needed at the read side,
> then a WRITE_ONCE() is needed as well on write sides.
>
> If we believe load-tearing and/or write-tearing must not ever happen,
> then we must document this.

Just FYI, forgot to mention: Recent KCSAN by default will forgive
unannotated aligned writes up to word-size, making the assumptions
these are safe. This would include things like 'var++' if there is
only a single writer. This was added because of kernel-wide
preferences we were told about.

Since I cannot verify if this assumption is always correct, I would
still prefer to mark writes if at all possible.  In the end it's up to
maintainers.

Thanks,
-- Marco