linux-kernel - RE: Question about the barrier() in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry

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: <8e1885b62d124cca9198ff6cdb52c7f5@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Sat, 22 Jul 2023 14:06:47 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Alan Huang' <mmpgouride@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "roman.gushchin@...ux.dev" <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Question about the barrier() in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu()

....
> > Found a related discussion:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102714
> >
> > Looks like GCC 10, 11 have been backported, not sure whether GCC 8 has been backported.
> >
> > So, I have the following questions:
> >
> > Given that some people might not update their GCC, do they need to be notified?
> >
> > Do we need to CC Linus?
> 
> No need.
> 
> I put the following code into a kernel module:
> 
> typedef struct list_head_shit {
> 	int next;
> 	struct list_head *first;
> } list_head_shit;
> 
> static void noinline so_shit(void) {
> 	list_head_shit *head = (list_head_shit *)kmalloc(sizeof(list_head_shit), GFP_KERNEL);
> 	head->first = 0;
> 	head->next = 1;
> 
> 	READ_ONCE(head->first);
> 	READ_ONCE(head->first);
> 
> 	kfree(head);
> }
> 
> x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc-11 generate the following code:
> 
> 0000000000000000 <so_shit>:
>    0:	48 8b 3d 00 00 00 00 	mov    0x0(%rip),%rdi        # 7 <so_shit+0x7>
>    7:	ba 10 00 00 00       		mov    $0x10,%edx
>    c:	be c0 0c 00 00      	 	mov    $0xcc0,%esi
>   11:	e8 00 00 00 00      	 	call   16 <so_shit+0x16>
>   16:	48 c7 40 08 00 00 00 	movq   $0x0,0x8(%rax)
>   1d:	00
>   1e:	48 89 c7             		mov    %rax,%rdi
>   21:	c7 00 01 00 00 00    	movl   $0x1,(%rax)
>   27:	48 8b 47 08          		mov    0x8(%rdi),%rax	  # READ_ONCE here
>   2b:	48 8b 47 08          		mov    0x8(%rdi),%rax	  # READ_ONCE here
>   2f:	e9 00 00 00 00      	 	jmp    34 <so_shit+0x34>
>   34:	66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 	data16 cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>   3b:	00 00 00 00
>   3f:	90                   			nop
> 
> The conclusion is that we can rely on READ_ONCE when writing kernel code.
> 
> The kernel’s READ_ONCE is different with the one Joel wrote yesterday. (Joel’s is the same as the old
> ACCESS_ONCE)

You do need to reproduce the error with code that looks like
the loop in the (old) udp.c code.

Then see if changing the implementation of READ_ONCE() from
a simple 'volatile' access the newer variant makes a difference.

You also need to check with the oldest version of gcc that is
still supported - that is much older than gcc 11.

In the udp code the volatile access was on a pointer (which should
qualify as a scaler type) so it may well be the inlining bug you
mentioned earlier, not the 'volatile on non-scaler' feature that
READ_ONCE() fixed.
That fix hasn't been back-ported to all the versions of gcc
that the kernel build supports.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)