linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: document the "one-time init" pattern

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: <20200718012555.GA1168834@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 21:25:55 -0400
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: document the "one-time init" pattern

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 05:58:57PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > +There are also cases in which the smp_load_acquire() can be replaced by
> > > +the more lightweight READ_ONCE().  (smp_store_release() is still
> > > +required.)  Specifically, if all initialized memory is transitively
> > > +reachable from the pointer itself, then there is no control dependency
> > 
> > I don't quite understand what "transitively reachable from the pointer
> > itself" means?  Does that describe the situation where all the objects
> > reachable through the object that the global struct foo pointer points
> > at are /only/ reachable via that global pointer?
> > 
> 
> The intent is that "transitively reachable" means that all initialized memory
> can be reached by dereferencing the pointer in some way, e.g. p->a->b[5]->c.
> 
> It could also be the case that allocating the object initializes some global or
> static data, which isn't reachable in that way.  Access to that data would then
> be a control dependency, which a data dependency barrier wouldn't work for.
> 
> It's possible I misunderstood something.  (Note the next paragraph does say that
> using READ_ONCE() is discouraged, exactly for this reason -- it can be hard to
> tell whether it's correct.)  Suggestions of what to write here are appreciated.

Perhaps something like this:

	Specifically, if the only way to reach the initialized memory 
	involves dereferencing the pointer itself then READ_ONCE() is 
	sufficient.  This is because there will be an address dependency 
	between reading the pointer and accessing the memory, which will 
	ensure proper ordering.  But if some of the initialized memory 
	is reachable some other way (for example, if it is global or 
	static data) then there need not be an address dependency, 
	merely a control dependency (checking whether the pointer is 
	non-NULL).  Control dependencies do not always ensure ordering 
	-- certainly not for reads, and depending on the compiler, 
	possibly not for some writes -- and therefore a load-acquire is 
	necessary.

Perhaps this is more wordy than you want, but it does get the important 
ideas across.

Alan Stern