linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile

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: <20210604205600.GB4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Fri, 4 Jun 2021 13:56:00 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if()

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:18:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 12:09 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Again, semantics do matter, and I don't see how the compiler could
> > actually break the fundamental issue of "load->conditional->store is a
> > fundamental ordering even without memory barriers because of basic
> > causality", because you can't just arbitrarily generate speculative
> > stores that would be visible to others.
> 
> This, after all, is why we trust that the *hardware* can't do it.
> 
> Even if the hardware mis-speculates and goes down the wrong branch,
> and speculatively does the store when it shouldn't have, we don't
> care: we know that such a speculative store can not possibly become
> semantically visible (*) to other threads.
> 
> For all the same reasons, I don't see how a compiler can violate
> causal ordering of the code (assuming, again, that the test is
> _meaningful_ - if we write nonsensical code, that's a different
> issue).

I am probably missing your point, but something like this:

	if (READ_ONCE(x))
		y = 42;
	else
		y = 1729;

Can in theory be transformed into something like this:

	y = 1729;
	if (READ_ONCE(x))
		y = 42;

The usual way to prevent it is to use WRITE_ONCE().

Fortunately, register sets are large, and gcc manages to do a single
store and use only %eax.

							Thanx, Paul

> If we have compilers that create speculative stores that are visible
> to other threads, we need to fix them.
> 
>                Linus
> 
> (*) By "semantically visible" I intend to avoid the whole timing/cache
> pattern kind of non-semantic visibility that is all about the spectre
> leakage kind of things.