linux-kernel - [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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <510cb07946be056d2da7dda721bbf444c288751b.1606923183.git.luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed,  2 Dec 2020 07:35:10 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     x86@...nel.org, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/4] membarrier: Add an actual barrier before rseq_preempt()

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>
---
 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