linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] xen/evtchn: read producer index only once

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: <e88526ac-6972-fe08-c58f-ea872cbdcc14@suse.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:51:22 +0100
From:   Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To:     Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] xen/evtchn: read producer index only once

On 08.02.2021 11:41, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 08.02.21 10:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.02.2021 11:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> In evtchn_read() use READ_ONCE() for reading the producer index in
>>> order to avoid the compiler generating multiple accesses.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/xen/evtchn.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/evtchn.c b/drivers/xen/evtchn.c
>>> index 421382c73d88..f6b199b597bf 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/xen/evtchn.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/evtchn.c
>>> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ static ssize_t evtchn_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
>>>   			goto unlock_out;
>>>   
>>>   		c = u->ring_cons;
>>> -		p = u->ring_prod;
>>> +		p = READ_ONCE(u->ring_prod);
>>>   		if (c != p)
>>>   			break;
>>
>> Why only here and not also in
>>
>> 		rc = wait_event_interruptible(u->evtchn_wait,
>> 					      u->ring_cons != u->ring_prod);
>>
>> or in evtchn_poll()? I understand it's not needed when
>> ring_prod_lock is held, but that's not the case in the two
>> afaics named places. Plus isn't the same then true for
>> ring_cons and ring_cons_mutex, i.e. aren't the two named
>> places plus evtchn_interrupt() also in need of READ_ONCE()
>> for ring_cons?
> 
> The problem solved here is the further processing using "p" multiple
> times. p must not be silently replaced with u->ring_prod by the
> compiler, so I probably should reword the commit message to say:
> 
> ... in order to not allow the compiler to refetch p.

I still wouldn't understand the change (and the lack of
further changes) then: The first further use of p is
outside the loop, alongside one of c. IOW why would c
then not need treating the same as p?

I also still don't see the difference between latching a
value into a local variable vs a "freestanding" access -
neither are guaranteed to result in exactly one memory
access afaict.

And of course there's also our beloved topic of access
tearing here: READ_ONCE() also excludes that (at least as
per its intentions aiui).

Jan