linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <Y4+qQrhxrcqOUolZ@boqun-archlinux>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 12:46:58 -0800
From:   Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To:     "stern@...land.harvard.edu" <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...wei.com>,
        "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "parri.andrea@...il.com" <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "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 v2] tools: memory-model: Make plain accesses carry
 dependencies

On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:18:13AM -0500, stern@...land.harvard.edu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 01:42:46PM +0000, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > Besides, could you also explain a little bit why only "data;rfi" can be "carry-dep" but "ctrl;rfi" and "addr;rfi" cannot? I think it's because there are special cases when compilers can figure out a condition being true or an address being constant therefore break the dependency
> > 
> > Oh, good question. A bit hard for me to write down the answer clearly 
> > (which some people will claim that I don't understand it well myself, 
> > but I beg to differ :) :( :) ).

Nah, I think your answer is clear to me ;-)

> > 
> > In a nutshell, it's because x ->data [Plain] ->rfi y ->... z fulfils 
> > the same role as storing something in a register and then using it in 
> > a subsequent computation; x ->ctrl y ->... z (and ->addr) don't. So 
> > it's not due to smart compilers, just the fact that the other two 
> > cases seem unrelated to the problem being solved, and including them 
> > might introduce some unsoundness (not that I have checked if they do).

So it's about whether a value can have a dataflow from x to y, right? In
that case registers and memory cells should be treated the same by
compilers, therefore we can extend the dependencies.
> 
> More can be said here.  Consider the following simple example:
> 
> 	void P0(int *x, int *y)
> 	{
> 		int r1, r2;
> 		int a[10];
> 
> 		r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> 		a[r1] = 1;
> 		r2 = a[r1];
> 		WRITE_ONCE(*y, r2);
> 	}
> 
> There is an address dependency from the READ_ONCE to the plain store in 
> a[r1].  Then there is an rfi and a data dependency to the WRITE_ONCE.
> 
> But in this example, the WRITE_ONCE is _not_ ordered after the 
> READ_ONCE, even though they are linked by (addr ; rfi ; data).  The 
> compiler knows that the value of r1 does not change between the two 
> plain accesses, so it knows that it can optimize the code to be:
> 
> 	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> 	r2 = 1;
> 	WRITE_ONCE(*y, r2);
> 	a[r1] = r2;
> 
> And then the CPU can execute the WRITE_ONCE before the READ_ONCE.  This 
> shows that (addr ; rfi) must not be included in the carry-deps relation.
> 
> You may be able to come up with a similar argument for (ctrl ; rfi), 
> although it might not be quite as clear.
> 

Thank you, Alan! One question though, can a "smart" compiler optimize
out the case below, with the same logic?

	void P0(int *x, int *y, int *a)
	{
		int r1, r2;

		r1 = READ_ONCE(*x); // A

		*a = r1 & 0xffff; // B

		r2 = *a & 0xffff0000; // C

		WRITE_ONCE(*y, r2); // D

	}

I think we have A ->data B ->rfi C ->data D, however a "smart" compiler
can figure out that r2 is actually zero, right? And the code get
optimized to:

	r1 = READ_ONCE(*x);
	r2 = 0;
	WRITE_ONCE(*y, r2);
	*a = r1 & 0xffff;

and break the dependency.

I know that our memory model is actually unware of the differences of
syntatics dependencies vs semantics syntatics, so one may argue that in
the (data; rfi) example above the compiler optimization is outside the
scope of LKMM, but won't the same reasoning apply to the (addr; rfi)
example from you? The WRITE_ONCE() _syntatically_ depends on load of
a[r1], therefore even a "smart" compiler can figure out the value, LKMM
won't take that into consideration.

Am I missing something subtle here?

Regards,
Boqun

> Alan