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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <30b3c8d3-3e2e-8f07-a05e-3c91fccde024@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:31:42 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Alexander Atanasov <alexander.atanasov@...tuozzo.com>,
        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 9/20/22 12:21, Alexander Atanasov wrote:
> 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);

Yeah, that would work. Given we are the only writer, we shouldn't even need
a READ_ONCE.

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

That's likely true as well. But the macros have been introduced for this
purpose AFAIK.