linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/13] task_work: Introduce task_work

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: <02b3c239-9505-66bd-7502-22ac46b6f007@kernel.dk>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 16:26:49 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
        Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] task_work: Introduce task_work_pending

On 3/9/22 4:24 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> writes:
> 
>> On 3/9/22 9:24 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/task_work.h b/include/linux/task_work.h
>>> index 5b8a93f288bb..897494b597ba 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/task_work.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/task_work.h
>>> @@ -19,6 +19,11 @@ enum task_work_notify_mode {
>>>  	TWA_SIGNAL,
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> +static inline bool task_work_pending(struct task_struct *task)
>>> +{
>>> +	return READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> Most of the checks for this is current, do we need READ_ONCE here?
> 
> There is a non-current use in fs/io_uring in __io_uring_show_fdinfo
> and another in task_work_cancel_match.
> 
> Beyond that there are quite a few writes that are not at all from
> current so even on current task->task_works can change if you look
> twice.
> 
> So if only to keep it from making unwarranted assumptions I think
> READ_ONCE makes sense.
> 
> Given that READ_ONCE is practically free I don't see where there is
> any harm in using it to document the kind of code we expect the compiler
> to generate.
> 
> Looking a second time I see all of the other reads of task->task_works
> are already READ_ONCE in kernel/task_work.c, so really I think if we
> don't want READ_ONCE we need a big fat comment about why it is safe
> in a check like task_work_pending and while it is needed everywhere
> else.  At the moment I am not smart enough to write that comment.
> 
> I will see about adding this bit of discussion in the commit comment to
> make it a little clearer why I am introducing READ_ONCE.

Fair enough, and doesn't warrant a current_tw_pending() helper in that
case either.

-- 
Jens Axboe