linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] nptl: Add rseq registration

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]

Message-ID: <1614144911.15213.1638816753026.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 13:52:33 -0500 (EST)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] nptl: Add rseq registration

[ Adding other kernel rseq maintainers in CC. ]

----- On Dec 6, 2021, at 12:14 PM, Florian Weimer fweimer@...hat.com wrote:

> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
> 
>> ----- On Dec 6, 2021, at 8:46 AM, Florian Weimer fweimer@...hat.com wrote:
>> [...]
>>> @@ -406,6 +407,9 @@ struct pthread
>>>   /* Used on strsignal.  */
>>>   struct tls_internal_t tls_state;
>>> 
>>> +  /* rseq area registered with the kernel.  */
>>> +  struct rseq rseq_area;
>>
>> The rseq UAPI requires that the fields within the rseq_area
>> are read-written with single-copy atomicity semantics.
>>
>> So either we define a "volatile struct rseq" here, or we'll need
>> to wrap all accesses with the proper volatile casts, or use the
>> relaxed_mo atomic accesses.
> 
> Under the C memory model, neither volatile nor relaxed MO result in
> single-copy atomicity semantics.  So I'm not sure what to make of this.
> Surely switching to inline assembly on all targets is over the top.
> 
> I think we can rely on a plain read doing the right thing for us.

AFAIU, the plain read does not prevent the compiler from re-loading the
value in case of high register pressure.

Accesses to rseq fields such as cpu_id need to be done as if those were
concurrently modified by a signal handler nesting on top of the user-space
code, with the particular twist that blocking signals has no effect on
concurrent updates.

I do not think we need to do the load in assembly. I was under the impression
that both volatile load and relaxed MO result in single-copy atomicity
semantics for an aligned pointer. Perhaps Paul, Peter, Boqun have something
to add here ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com