linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/13] mm/gup: Fix the lockless PMD access

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2022 20:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        x86@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, aarcange@...hat.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, jroedel@...e.de, ubizjak@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] mm/gup: Fix the lockless PMD access

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 05:42:18PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2022, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > On architectures where the PTE/PMD is larger than the native word size
> > > (i386-PAE for example), READ_ONCE() can do the wrong thing. Use
> > > pmdp_get_lockless() just like we use ptep_get_lockless().
> > 
> > I thought that was something Will Deacon put a lot of effort
> > into handling around 5.8 and 5.9: see "strong prevailing wind" in
> > include/asm-generic/rwonce.h, formerly in include/linux/compiler.h.
> > 
> > Was it too optimistic?  Did the wind drop?
> > 
> > I'm interested in the answer, but I've certainly no objection
> > to making this all more obviously robust - thanks.
> 
> READ_ONCE() can't do what the hardware can't do. There is absolutely no
> way i386 can do an atomic 64bit load without resorting to cmpxchg8b.

Right.

> 
> Also see the comment that goes with compiletime_assert_rwonce_type(). It
> explicitly allows 64bit because there's just too much stuff that does
> that (and there's actually 32bit hardware that *can* do it).

Yes, the "strong prevailing wind" comment. I think I've never read that
carefully enough, until you redirected me back there: it is in fact
quite clear, that it's only *atomic* in the Armv7 + LPAE case; but
READ_ONCEy (READ_EACH_HALF_ONCE I guess) for other 64-on-32 cases.

> 
> But it's still very wrong.

Somewhat clearer to me now, thanks.

Hugh