linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 03/21] list: Annotate lockless list primitives with data

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: <20200401084014.GC16446@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:40:15 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Maddie Stone <maddiestone@...gle.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/21] list: Annotate lockless list primitives with
 data_race()

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 08:34:36AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 15:10, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:23:30PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > Then, my suggestion would be to mark the write with data_race() and
> > > just leave this as a READ_ONCE(). Having a data_race() somewhere only
> > > makes KCSAN stop reporting the race if the paired access is also
> > > marked (be it with data_race() or _ONCE, etc.).
> >
> > The problem with taking that approach is that it ends up much of the
> > list implementation annotated with either WRITE_ONCE() or data_race(),
> > meaning that concurrent, racy list operations will no longer be reported
> > by KCSAN. I think that's a pretty big deal and I'm strongly against
> > annotating the internals of library code such as this because it means
> > that buggy callers will largely go undetected.
> >
> > The situation we have here is that some calls, e.g. hlist_empty() are
> > safe even in the presence of a racy write and I'd like to suppress KCSAN
> > reports without annotating the writes at all.
> >
> > > Alternatively, if marking the write is impossible, you can surround
> > > the access with kcsan_disable_current()/kcsan_enable_current(). Or, as
> > > a last resort, just leaving as-is is fine too, because KCSAN's default
> > > config (still) has KCSAN_ASSUME_PLAIN_WRITES_ATOMIC selected.
> >
> > Hmm, I suppose some bright spark will want to change the default at the some
> > point though, no? ;) I'll look at using
> > kcsan_disable_current()/kcsan_enable_current(), thanks.
> 
> I think this will come up again (it did already come up in some other
> patch I reviewed, and Paul also mentioned it), so it seems best to
> change data_race() to match the intuitive semantics of just completely
> ignoring the access marked with it. I.e. marking accesses racing with
> accesses marked with data_race() is now optional:
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200331193233.15180-1-elver@google.com

/me goes look. Thanks!

> In which case, the original patch you had here works just fine.

Ah yes, so now data_race(READ_ONCE(...)) does make sense as a combination.
It's tempting to wrap that up as an accessor, but actually forcing people to
spell it out might not be a bad thing after all.

Will