[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXFYRNrP2k8yppgfdKg+CxWeYfHTbzLBuyBqJ9UVAR_vaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 14:00:16 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a read memory barrier to wait_on_buffer
Hi Mikulas,
On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 at 13:43, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Let's have a look at this piece of code in __bread_slow:
> get_bh(bh);
> bh->b_end_io = end_buffer_read_sync;
> submit_bh(REQ_OP_READ, 0, bh);
> wait_on_buffer(bh);
> if (buffer_uptodate(bh))
> return bh;
> Neither wait_on_buffer nor buffer_uptodate contain a memory barrier.
> Consequently, if someone calls sb_bread and then reads the buffer data,
> the read of buffer data may be speculatively executed before
> wait_on_buffer(bh) and it may return invalid data.
>
This has little to do with speculation, so better to drop this S bomb
from your commit message. This is about concurrency and weak memory
ordering.
> Also, there is this pattern present several times:
> wait_on_buffer(bh);
> if (!buffer_uptodate(bh))
> err = -EIO;
> It may be possible that buffer_uptodate is executed before wait_on_buffer
> and it may return spurious error.
>
> Fix these bugs by adding a read memory barrier to wait_on_buffer().
>
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/buffer_head.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/buffer_head.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/buffer_head.h
> @@ -353,6 +353,11 @@ static inline void wait_on_buffer(struct
> might_sleep();
> if (buffer_locked(bh))
> __wait_on_buffer(bh);
> + /*
> + * Make sure that the following accesses to buffer state or buffer data
> + * are not reordered with buffer_locked(bh).
> + */
> + smp_rmb();
> }
>
> static inline int trylock_buffer(struct buffer_head *bh)
>
This doesn't seem like a very robust fix to me, tbh - I suppose this
makes the symptom you encountered go away, but the underlying issue
remains afaict.
Given that the lock and uptodate fields etc are just bits in a
bitfield, wouldn't it be better to use cmpxchg() with acquire/release
semantics (as appropriate) to manage these bits?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists