linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tools: memory-model: Make plain accesses carry dependencies

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

Message-ID: <20221203190452.GS4001@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1>
Date:   Sat, 3 Dec 2022 11:04:52 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>,
        "parri.andrea@...il.com" <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "boqun.feng@...il.com" <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>,
        "dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "j.alglave@....ac.uk" <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        "luc.maranget@...ia.fr" <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        "akiyks@...il.com" <akiyks@...il.com>,
        "dlustig@...dia.com" <dlustig@...dia.com>,
        "joel@...lfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "urezki@...il.com" <urezki@...il.com>,
        "quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: memory-model: Make plain accesses carry
 dependencies

On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 11:47:06AM +0000, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Stern [mailto:stern@...land.harvard.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 9:22 PM
> 
> > > void *y[2];
> > > void *x[2] = { (void*)&y[1], (void*)&y[0] };
> > > 
> > > P0() {
> > >     void **t = (void**)(x[0]);
> 
> > Now t holds a pointer to y[1].
> 
> Unfortunately, this kind of inductive reasoning (arguing about what happens based on what happened "before") is not possible with memory models that allow OOTA; as you put it, one must allow for loads reading from stores that haven't happened yet.
> One such store (I promise!(*)) is a store to x[0] which writes &x[1]. Let's consider the alternative universe where we read from this future store, so now t holds a pointer to x[1].
> 
> > >     *t = (void*)(t-1);
> 
> > And now y[1] holds a pointer to y[0].
> 
> In our alternative universe, x[1] now holds a pointer to x[0].
> 
> 
> > > }
> > > P1() {
> > >     void **u = (void**)(x[1]);	
> 
> > Now u holds a pointer to y[0].
> 
> In our alternative universe, u holds the pointer to x[0] stored by P0().
> 
> > >     *u = (void*)(u+1);
> 
> > And now y[0] holds a pointer to y[1].
> 
> In our alternative universe, now x[0] holds a pointer to x[1]. Behold, the store I promised would happen!
> 
> > > }
> 
> > The contents of x[] never get changed, so there's no question about the values of t and u.
> 
> They might get changed, by the stores *t=... and *u=...
> 
> Have fun,
> Jonas
> 
> (*= because this example is provided free of charge, there is no actual promise, to the extent permitted by applicable law)

And another reason why I tend to err on marking more accesses rather
than marking fewer.  You never know when some "clever" compiler writer
might add a really strange optimization...

							Thanx, Paul