linux-kernel - Re: arm64: allmodconfig: BUG: KCSAN: data-race in p9_client_cb / p9_client

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: <Y42aDQ0ZOUt4dvYc@codewreck.org>
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 16:13:17 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: arm64: allmodconfig: BUG: KCSAN: data-race in p9_client_cb /
 p9_client_rpc

Marco Elver wrote on Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 08:00:00AM +0100:
> > Should I just update the wrapped condition, as below?
> >
> > -       err = wait_event_killable(req->wq, req->status >= REQ_STATUS_RCVD);
> > +       err = wait_event_killable(req->wq,
> > +                                 READ_ONCE(req->status) >= REQ_STATUS_RCVD);
> 
> Yes, this looks good!
> 
> > The writes all are straightforward, there's all the error paths to
> > convert to WRITE_ONCE too but that's not difficult (leaving only the
> > init without such a marker); I'll send a patch when you've confirmed the
> > read looks good.
> > (the other reads are a bit less obvious as some are protected by a lock
> > in trans_fd, which should cover all cases of possible concurrent updates
> > there as far as I can see, but this mixed model is definitely hard to
> > reason with... Well, that's how it was written and I won't ever have time
> > to rewrite any of this. Enough ranting.)
> 
> If the lock-protected accesses indeed are non-racy, they should be
> left unmarked. If some assumption here turns out to be wrong, KCSAN
> would (hopefully) tell us one way or another.

Great, that makes sense.

I've left the commit at home, will submit it tonight -- you and Naresh
will be in Cc from suggested/reported-by tags.

-- 
Dominique