linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Make failslab writable again

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: <7d79d13b-0579-452f-7a07-4e3eba205d23@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 13:21:33 +0300
From:   Alexander Atanasov <alexander.atanasov@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Cc:     kernel@...nvz.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Make failslab writable again

On 20.09.22 12:29, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/20/22 11:17, Alexander Atanasov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 20.09.22 11:42, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>> +static ssize_t failslab_store(struct kmem_cache *s, const char *buf,
>>>> +                size_t length)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    if (s->refcount > 1)
>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +    s->flags &= ~SLAB_FAILSLAB;
>>>> +    if (buf[0] == '1')
>>>> +        s->flags |= SLAB_FAILSLAB;
>>>
>>> Could we at least use a temporary variable to set up the final value and
>>> then do a WRITE_ONCE() to s->flags, so the compiler is not allowed to do
>>> some funky stuff? Assuming this is really the only place where we modify
>>> s->flags during runtime, so we can't miss other updates due to RMW.
>>
>> Since it is set or clear - instead of temporary variable and potentially two
>> writes and RMW issues i would suggest this:
>> +    if (buf[0] == '1')
>> +        s->flags |= SLAB_FAILSLAB;
>> +       else
>> +        s->flags &= ~SLAB_FAILSLAB;
> 
> This way also has RMW issues, and also the compiler is allowed to
> temporarily modify s->flags any way it likes; with WRITE_ONCE() it can't.

Okay, so the safest way is this?

if (buf[0] == '1')
	WRITE_ONCE(s->flags, READ_ONCE(s->flags) | SLAB_FAILSLAB);
else
	WRITE_ONCE(s->flags, READ_ONCE(s->flags) & ~SLAB_FAILSLAB);

It got me thinking how many places would break if the compiler
starts to temporariliy modify the flags - i hope it never does.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Atanasov