linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xtensa: enable KCSAN

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANpmjNO1WDCgv_cPVMKe3G31Kwqtbg__QqpsotkkVFY-5U2y6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:58:50 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
Cc:     "open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)" 
        <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xtensa: enable KCSAN

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:11, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com> wrote:

> > Each test case is run with varying number of threads - am I correctly
> > inferring that out of all test cases, usually only one such run failed,
> > and runs with different number of threads (of the same test case)
> > succeeded?
>
> For most of the failures -- yes.
> For the test_missing_barrier and test_atomic_builtins_missing_barrier
> on the hardware it was the opposite: only one subtest succeeded while
> all others failed. Does it mean that the xtensa memory model is
> insufficiently weak?

No - KCSAN's weak memory modeling and detection of missing barriers
doesn't care what the HW does, it only approximates the LKMM. If the
test_barrier_nothreads case passed, there's nothing wrong with barrier
instrumentation. Regarding the test case failures, if at least 1
passed I'm guessing it's just flaky (not enough concurrency, or
unexpected barriers due to too many interrupts which can happen if we
enter the scheduler).

Unfortunately I don't know xtensa and if this is normal, but modulo
flakiness, I think it's fine. (I've made a note to try and deflake the
test if I can find time to try the xtensa version.)