linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] s390/vfio-ap: control access to PQAP(AQIC) interception handler

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: <20210525141646.GY1002214@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 11:16:46 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     "Jason J. Herne" <jjherne@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        cohuck@...hat.com, pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com,
        hca@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] s390/vfio-ap: control access to PQAP(AQIC)
 interception handler

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:07:46AM -0400, Jason J. Herne wrote:
> On 5/25/21 9:26 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 09:24:59AM -0400, Jason J. Herne wrote:
> > > change the function pointer to point to vfio_ap_ops:handle_pqap(). When we
> > > unload the module we change the function pointer back to the stub.  The
> > > updates should be atomic operations so no lock needed, right?
> > 
> > No
> > 
> > Jason
> > 
> 
> Okay... Would you be willing to elaborate, please? A counter argument, or a
> simple explanation would be appreciated. A simple "no" does not really do
> much to advance the discussion :).

Go back and review the earlier thread, the issue was never the
atomicity of the function pointer but the locking of the data that
function is accessing.

> I'm fairly sure that a 64-bit pointer would be updated atomically. A reader
> of this value is either going to see value A or value B, not the high half
> of A and the low half of B. Maybe we also need a memory barrier to prevent
> stale values from being seen on another core?

You need to use special macros in Linux to follow this memory model

Jason