linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] locking/osq_lock: annotate a data race in osq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200211124753.GP14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:47:53 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] locking/osq_lock: annotate a data race in osq_lock

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 11:16:05AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 05:07, Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
> >
> > prev->next could be accessed concurrently as noticed by KCSAN,
> >
> >  write (marked) to 0xffff9d3370dbbe40 of 8 bytes by task 3294 on cpu 107:
> >   osq_lock+0x25f/0x350
> >   osq_wait_next at kernel/locking/osq_lock.c:79
> >   (inlined by) osq_lock at kernel/locking/osq_lock.c:185
> >   rwsem_optimistic_spin
> >   <snip>
> >
> >  read to 0xffff9d3370dbbe40 of 8 bytes by task 3398 on cpu 100:
> >   osq_lock+0x196/0x350
> >   osq_lock at kernel/locking/osq_lock.c:157
> >   rwsem_optimistic_spin
> >   <snip>
> >
> > Since the write only stores NULL to prev->next and the read tests if
> > prev->next equals to this_cpu_ptr(&osq_node). Even if the value is
> > shattered, the code is still working correctly. Thus, mark it as an
> > intentional data race using the data_race() macro.
> 
> I have said this before: we're not just guarding against load/store
> tearing, although on their own, they make it deceptively easy to
> reason about data races.
> 
> The case here seems to be another instance of a C-CAS, to avoid
> unnecessarily dirtying a cacheline.
> 
> Here, the loop would make me suspicious, because a compiler could
> optimize out re-loading the value. Due to the smp_load_acquire,
> however, at the least we have 1 implied compiler barrier in this loop
> which means that will likely not happen.

The loop has cpu_relax() (as any spin loop should have), that implies a
compiler barrier() and should disallow the compiler from being funny.

That said; I feel it would be very good to mandate a comment with every
use of data_race(), just like we mandate a comment with memory barriers.
This comment can then explain why the data_race() annotation is correct.