linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] Rework READ

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:   Wed, 13 May 2020 15:15:55 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] Rework READ_ONCE() to improve codegen

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 14:40, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 02:32:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 01:48:41PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> >
> > > Disabling most instrumentation for arch/x86 is reasonable. Also fine
> > > with the __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE changes (your improved
> > > compiler-friendlier version).
> > >
> > > We likely can't have both: still instrument __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE
> > > (as Will suggested) *and* avoid double-instrumentation in arch_atomic.
> > > If most use-cases of __READ_ONCE/__WRITE_ONCE are likely to use
> > > data_race() or KCSAN_SANITIZE := n anyway, I'd say it's reasonable for
> > > now.
>
> I agree that Peter's patch is the right thing to do for now. I was hoping we
> could instrument __{READ,WRITE}_ONCE(), but that we before I realised that
> __no_sanitize_or_inline doesn't seem to do anything.
>
> > Right, if/when people want sanitize crud enabled for x86 I need
> > something that:
> >
> >  - can mark a function 'no_sanitize' and all code that gets inlined into
> >    that function must automagically also not get sanitized. ie. make
> >    inline work like macros (again).
> >
> > And optionally:
> >
> >  - can mark a function explicitly 'sanitize', and only when an explicit
> >    sanitize and no_sanitize mix in inlining give the current
> >    incompatible attribute splat.
> >
> > That way we can have the noinstr function attribute imply no_sanitize
> > and frob the DEFINE_IDTENTRY*() macros to use (a new) sanitize_or_inline
> > helper instead of __always_inline for __##func().
>
> Sounds like a good plan to me, assuming the compiler folks are onboard.
> In the meantime, can we kill __no_sanitize_or_inline and put it back to
> the old __no_kasan_or_inline, which I think simplifies compiler.h and
> doesn't mislead people into using the function annotation to avoid KCSAN?
>
> READ_ONCE_NOCHECK should also probably be READ_ONCE_NOKASAN, but I
> appreciate that's a noisier change.

So far so good, except: both __no_sanitize_or_inline and
__no_kcsan_or_inline *do* avoid KCSAN instrumenting plain accesses, it
just doesn't avoid explicit kcsan_check calls, like those in
READ/WRITE_ONCE if KCSAN is enabled for the compilation unit. That's
just because macros won't be redefined just for __no_sanitize
functions. Similarly, READ_ONCE_NOCHECK does work as expected, and its
access is unchecked.

This will have the expected result:
__no_sanitize_or_inline void foo(void) { x++; } // no data races reported

This will not work as expected:
__no_sanitize_or_inline void foo(void) { READ_ONCE(x); }  // data
races are reported

All this could be fixed if GCC devs would finally take my patch to
make -fsanitize=thread distinguish volatile [1], but then we have to
wait ~years for the new compilers to reach us. So please don't hold
your breath for this one any time soon.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544452.html

Thanks,
-- Marco