linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/11] kasan: add compiler barriers to KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN

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: <CAAeHK+yFw5YcR1jAYbE+PSLc0NowCv88mS8kJLspe_RkSjX37w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:50:54 +0100
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] kasan: add compiler barriers to KUNIT_EXPECT_KASAN_FAIL

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:18 AM Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 7:28 PM Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > It might not be obvious to the compiler that the expression must be
> > executed between writing and reading to fail_data. In this case, the
> > compiler might reorder or optimize away some of the accesses, and
> > the tests will fail.
>
> Have you seen this happen in practice?

Yes.

> Are these accesses to fail_data that are optimized (in which case we
> could make it volatile)?

Yes. AFAIU compiler doesn't expect expression to change fail_data
fields, no those accesses and checks are optimized away.

> Note that compiler barriers won't probably help against removing
> memory accesses, they only prevent reordering.
>
> > +       barrier();                                              \
> >         expression;                                             \
> > +       barrier();                                              \
>
> The need for barriers is not obvious to the reader, so a comment in
> the code clarifying that would be nice.

Will add a comment in v2, thanks!