linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] power/qos: fix a data race in pm_qos_*

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:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:54:33 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, elver@...gle.com,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] power/qos: fix a data race in pm_qos_*_value

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 2:01 AM Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 2020, at 7:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > It may be a bug under certain conditions, but you don't mention what
> > conditions they are.  Reporting it as a general bug is not accurate at
> > the very least.
>
> Could we rule out load tearing, store tearing and reload of global_req in cpuidle_governor_latency() for all compilers and architectures which could introduce logic bugs?
>
>         int global_req = cpu_latency_qos_limit();
>
>         if (device_req > global_req)
>                 device_req = global_req;
>
> If under register pressure, the compiler might get ride of the tmp variable, i.e.,
>
> If (device_req > cpu_latency_qos_limit())
> —-> race with the writer.
>          device_req = cpu_latency_qos_limit();

Yes, there is a race here with or without the WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE()
annotations (note that these annotations don't prevent CPUs from
reordering things, so device_req may be set before global_req
regardless).

However, worst-case it may cause an old value to be used and that can
happen anyway if the entire cpuidle_governor_latency_req() runs
between the curr_value update and pm_qos_set_value() in
pm_qos_update_target(), for example.

IOW, there is no guarantee that the new value will be used immediately
after updating a QoS request anyway.

I agree with adding the annotations (I was considering posting a patch
doing that myself), but just as a matter of making the intention
clear.