linux-kernel - Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro

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: <20201005142351.GB376584@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:23:51 -0400
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
        akiyks@...il.com, dlustig@...dia.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Litmus test for question from Al Viro

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 10:12:48AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 09:20:03AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 10:38:46PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Considering the bug in herd7 pointed out by Akira, we should rewrite P1 as:
> > > 
> > > P1(int *x, int *y)
> > > {
> > > 	int r2;
> > > 
> > > 	r = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > 
> > (r2?)
> > 
> > > 	WRITE_ONCE(*x, r2);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > Other than that, this is fine.
> > 
> > But yes, module the typo, I agree that this rewrite is much better than the
> > proposal above. The definition of control dependencies on arm64 (per the Arm
> > ARM [1]) isn't entirely clear that it provides order if the WRITE is
> > executed on both paths of the branch, and I believe there are ongoing
> > efforts to try to tighten that up. I'd rather keep _that_ topic separate
> > from the "bug in herd" topic to avoid extra confusion.
> 
> Ah, now I see that you're changing P1 here, not P0. So I'm now nervous
> about claiming that this is a bug in herd without input from Jade or Luc,
> as it does unfortunately tie into the definition of control dependencies
> and it could be a deliberate choice.

I think you misunderstood.  The bug in herd7 affects the way it handles 
P1, not P0.  With

	r2 = READ_ONCE(*y);
	WRITE_ONCE(*x, r2);

herd7 generates a data dependency from the read to the write.  With

	WRITE_ONCE(*x, READ_ONCE(*y));

it doesn't generate any dependency, even though the code does exactly 
the same thing as far as the memory model is concerned.  That's the bug 
I was referring to.

The failure to recognize the dependency in P0 should be considered a 
combined limitation of the memory model and herd7.  It's not a simple 
mistake that can be fixed by a small rewrite of herd7; rather it's a 
deliberate choice we made based on herd7's inherent design.  We 
explicitly said that control dependencies extend only to the code in the 
branches of an "if" statement; anything beyond the end of the statement 
is not considered to be dependent.

Alan