linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] membarrier: Add an actual barrier before rseq

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: <203775582.21.1606938043613.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:40:43 -0500 (EST)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     x86 <x86@...nel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] membarrier: Add an actual barrier before
 rseq_preempt()

----- On Dec 2, 2020, at 10:35 AM, Andy Lutomirski luto@...nel.org wrote:

> It seems to me that most RSEQ membarrier users will expect any
> stores done before the membarrier() syscall to be visible to the
> target task(s).  While this is extremely likely to be true in
> practice, nothing actually guarantees it by a strict reading of the
> x86 manuals.  Rather than providing this guarantee by accident and
> potentially causing a problem down the road, just add an explicit
> barrier.
> 
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>

Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>

> ---
> kernel/sched/membarrier.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
> index 5a40b3828ff2..6251d3d12abe 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/membarrier.c
> @@ -168,6 +168,14 @@ static void ipi_mb(void *info)
> 
> static void ipi_rseq(void *info)
> {
> +	/*
> +	 * Ensure that all stores done by the calling thread are visible
> +	 * to the current task before the current task resumes.  We could
> +	 * probably optimize this away on most architectures, but by the
> +	 * time we've already sent an IPI, the cost of the extra smp_mb()
> +	 * is negligible.
> +	 */
> +	smp_mb();
> 	rseq_preempt(current);
> }
> 
> --
> 2.28.0

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com