linux-kernel - Re: Aarch64 EXT4FS inode checksum failures - seems to be weak memory ordering issues

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: <20210108202924.GY1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:29:24 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Aarch64 EXT4FS inode checksum failures - seems to be weak memory
 ordering issues

On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 12:02:53PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Well, honestly, I'm always in favor of having people not use ancient
> compilers, but both of the issues at hand do seem to be specific to
> arm64.
> 
> The "gcc before 5.1 generates incorrect stack pointer writes on arm64"
> sounds pretty much deadly, and I think means that yes, for arm64 we
> simply need to require 5.1 or newer.
> 
> I also suspect there is much less reason to use old gcc's on arm64. I
> can't imagine that people really run very old setups, Is some old RHEL
> version even relevant for arm64?

For me, six years old for a compiler is really not "very old" - and,
when I first encountered this problem, it was over 12 months ago.
Apart from the kernel, I am not in the habbit of upgrading stuff for
the sake of upgrading - I tend to stick with what I have and what
works. Not everyone on this planet has a desire to have the latest
and greatest all the time.

Since then, I've _not_ wanted to change the compiler in case the
problem vanishes without explanation - it had the feeling of being
way more serious than a compiler bug, potentially a memory ordering
bug.

It took about a year just to start being able to work out what was
going on - it would take up to about three months to show for me,
and when it did, it spat out an ext4 inode checksum error and made
the rootfs read-only.

To "hide" that by upgrading the compiler, and then to be in the
situation where you do not trust any aarch64 machine with your data
is no real solution. That's exactly where I was until this had been
found. The aarch64 architecture had completely lost my trust as a
viable computing platform - and I was at the point of considering
disposing of all my aarch64 hardware and replacing it with x86.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!