linux-kernel - Re: amusing SLUB compaction bug when CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR

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:   Mon, 24 Oct 2022 17:24:59 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: amusing SLUB compaction bug when CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE

On 10/24/22 17:06, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 04:35:04PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> I would like to have a working safe version in -next, even if we are able
>> simplify it later thanks to frozen refcounts. I've made a formal patch of
>> yours, but I'm still convinced the slab check needs to be more paranoid so
>> it can't observe a false positive __folio_test_movable() while missing the
>> folio_test_slab(), hence I added the barriers as in my previous attempt [1].
>> Does that work for you and can I add your S-o-b?
> 
> Thanks for picking this back up.
> 
>> +++ b/mm/slab.c
>> @@ -1370,6 +1370,8 @@ static struct slab *kmem_getpages(struct kmem_cache *cachep, gfp_t flags,
>>  
>>  	account_slab(slab, cachep->gfporder, cachep, flags);
>>  	__folio_set_slab(folio);
>> +	/* Make the flag visible before any changes to folio->mapping */
>> +	smp_wmb();
> 
> So what's the point of using __folio_set_slab() only to call smp_wmb()
> afterwards?  If we call folio_set_slab() instead, don't all the other
> barriers go away?  (This is a genuine question; I am bad at this kind
> of reasoning).  Obviously it would still need a comment.

AFAIU (which doesn't mean much, TBH :)) folio_set_slab() makes the setting
of the flag protected against other flags set operations so our setting is
not lost in a non-atomic RMW. But as we are the only one who can be setting
any page/folio flag here (isolate_movable_page() for sure doesn't), we don't
need it for that kind of atomicity for page/folio flags field.

And, simply changing it to folio_set_slab() would not add the sufficient
smp_wmb() semantics to order the flags write visibility against a later
write to the struct slab field that overlaps page->mapping. Only some atomic
operations have that implicit barrier, (per
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt and Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt) and
set_bit() is not one of those. So we'd still need a smp_mb__after_atomic()
AFAIU and at that point, doing the above seems less obscure to me.

(Of course if we had the reason to use folio_set_slab() for its own atomic
guarantee, then smp_mb__after_atomic() instead of smp_wmb() would be better
as on some architectures it would make the barrier no-op).