linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add a read memory barrier to wait_on

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]

Date:   Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:41:02 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
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



On Sun, 31 Jul 2022, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

> 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.

Yes.

> 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?

The kernel already uses clear_bit_unlock, test_and_set_bit_lock and 
wait_on_bit_lock_io to manage the BH_Lock bit - and they have 
acquire/release semantics.

The only problem is that test_bit doesn't provide any memory barriers. 
Should we add the barrier to buffer_locked() instead of wait_on_buffer()? 
Perhaps it would fix more bugs - in reiserfs, there's this piece of code:

                if (buffer_locked(bh)) {
                        spin_unlock(lock);
                        wait_on_buffer(bh);
                        spin_lock(lock);
                }
                if (!buffer_uptodate(bh)) {
                        ret = -EIO;
                }

or this:
                if (buffer_locked(bh)) {
                        int depth;
                        PROC_INFO_INC(sb, scan_bitmap.wait);
                        depth = reiserfs_write_unlock_nested(sb);
                        __wait_on_buffer(bh);
                        reiserfs_write_lock_nested(sb, depth);
                }
                BUG_ON(!buffer_uptodate(bh));
                BUG_ON(atomic_read(&bh->b_count) == 0);

That assumes that buffer_locked provides a barrier.

Mikulas