linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: Handle compiler optimizations in ucall

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: <34e1b920-0a6b-5030-bbd9-6b1816789b8d@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 11:22:12 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     "'oliver.upton@...ux.dev'" <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: Handle compiler optimizations in ucall

On 6/17/22 09:28, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 09:54:16PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
>> From: oliver.upton@...ux.dev
>>> Sent: 16 June 2022 19:45
>>
>>>
>>> June 16, 2022 11:48 AM, "David Laight" <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>>>> No wonder I was confused.
>>>> It's not surprising the compiler optimises it all away.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't seem right to be 'abusing' WRITE_ONCE() here.
>>>> Just adding barrier() should be enough and much more descriptive.
>>>
>>> I had the same thought, although I do not believe barrier() is sufficient
>>> on its own. barrier_data() with a pointer to uc passed through
>>> is required to keep clang from eliminating the dead store.
>>
>> A barrier() (full memory clobber) ought to be stronger than
>> the partial one than barrier_data() generates.
>>
>> I can't quite decide whether you need a barrier() both sides
>> of the 'magic write'.
>> Plausibly the compiler could discard the on-stack data
>> after the barrier() and before the 'magic write'.
>>
>> Certainly putting the 'magic write' inside a asm block
>> that has a memory clobber is a more correct solution.
> 
> Indeed, since the magic write is actually a guest MMIO write, then
> it should be using writeq().

It doesn't need to use writeq() because no special precautions are 
needed with respect to cacheability or instruction reordering (as is the 
case with hardware registers).

WRITE_ONCE is okay, especially since the code never reads it (and if it 
did it would also use READ_ONCE).

Paolo