linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] make buffer_locked provide an acquire semantics

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: <CAMj1kXE-TpUGgFxBOaZbsF7k3rdHdjBoqoxZ1bvDz5AoTGADxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 00:31:40 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        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>,
        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 v3 2/2] make buffer_locked provide an acquire semantics

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 00:14, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 04:43:08PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka 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 executed before wait_on_buffer(bh) on
> > architectures with weak memory ordering and it may return invalid data.
>
> I think we should be consistent between PageUptodate() and
> buffer_uptodate().  Here's how it's done for pages currently:
>
> static inline bool folio_test_uptodate(struct folio *folio)
>         bool ret = test_bit(PG_uptodate, folio_flags(folio, 0));
>         /*
>          * Must ensure that the data we read out of the folio is loaded
>          * _after_ we've loaded folio->flags to check the uptodate bit.
>          * We can skip the barrier if the folio is not uptodate, because
>          * we wouldn't be reading anything from it.
>          *
>          * See folio_mark_uptodate() for the other side of the story.
>          */
>         if (ret)
>                 smp_rmb();
>
>         return ret;
>
> ...
>
> static __always_inline void folio_mark_uptodate(struct folio *folio)
>         /*
>          * Memory barrier must be issued before setting the PG_uptodate bit,
>          * so that all previous stores issued in order to bring the folio
>          * uptodate are actually visible before folio_test_uptodate becomes true.
>          */
>         smp_wmb();
>         set_bit(PG_uptodate, folio_flags(folio, 0));
>
> I'm happy for these to also be changed to use acquire/release; no
> attachment to the current code.  But bufferheads & pages should have the
> same semantics, or we'll be awfully confused.

I suspect that adding acquire/release annotations at the bitops level
is not going to get us anywhere, given that for the uptodate flag, it
is the set operation that has release semantics, whereas for a lock
flag, it will be the clear operation. Reverting to the legacy barrier
instructions to try and avoid this ambiguity will likely only make
things worse.

I was cc'ed only on patch #1 of your v3, so I'm not sure where this is
headed, but I strongly +1 Matthew's point above that this should be
done at the level that defines how the bit fields should be
interpreted wrt to the contents of the data structure that they
describe/guard.