linux-kernel - [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() for use_global

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 14 May 2021 19:53:19 +0200
From:   Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     1vier1@....de, Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: [PATCH] ipc/sem.c: use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() for use_global_lock

The patch solves two weaknesses in ipc/sem.c:

1) The initial read of use_global_lock in sem_lock() is an
intentional race. KCSAN detects these accesses and prints
a warning.

2) The code assumes that plain C read/writes are not
mangled by the CPU or the compiler.

To solve both issues, use READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE().
Plain C reads are used in code that owns sma->sem_perm.lock.

Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
---
 ipc/sem.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index bf534c74293e..a0ad3a3edde2 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -217,6 +217,8 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct seq_file *s, void *it);
  * this smp_load_acquire(), this is guaranteed because the smp_load_acquire()
  * is inside a spin_lock() and after a write from 0 to non-zero a
  * spin_lock()+spin_unlock() is done.
+ * To prevent the compiler/cpu temporarily writing 0 to use_global_lock,
+ * READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE() is used.
  *
  * 2) queue.status: (SEM_BARRIER_2)
  * Initialization is done while holding sem_lock(), so no further barrier is
@@ -342,10 +344,10 @@ static void complexmode_enter(struct sem_array *sma)
 		 * Nothing to do, just reset the
 		 * counter until we return to simple mode.
 		 */
-		sma->use_global_lock = USE_GLOBAL_LOCK_HYSTERESIS;
+		WRITE_ONCE(sma->use_global_lock, USE_GLOBAL_LOCK_HYSTERESIS);
 		return;
 	}
-	sma->use_global_lock = USE_GLOBAL_LOCK_HYSTERESIS;
+	WRITE_ONCE(sma->use_global_lock, USE_GLOBAL_LOCK_HYSTERESIS);
 
 	for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
 		sem = &sma->sems[i];
@@ -371,7 +373,8 @@ static void complexmode_tryleave(struct sem_array *sma)
 		/* See SEM_BARRIER_1 for purpose/pairing */
 		smp_store_release(&sma->use_global_lock, 0);
 	} else {
-		sma->use_global_lock--;
+		WRITE_ONCE(sma->use_global_lock,
+				sma->use_global_lock-1);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -412,7 +415,7 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
 	 * Initial check for use_global_lock. Just an optimization,
 	 * no locking, no memory barrier.
 	 */
-	if (!sma->use_global_lock) {
+	if (!READ_ONCE(sma->use_global_lock)) {
 		/*
 		 * It appears that no complex operation is around.
 		 * Acquire the per-semaphore lock.
-- 
2.31.1