linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix vma->anon_vma check for per-VMA locking; fix anon

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:51:37 -0400
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        paulmck@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
        Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
        Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
        Daniel Lustig <dlustig@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix vma->anon_vma check for per-VMA locking; fix
 anon_vma memory ordering

On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 01:35:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 8:44 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:34:44PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Jul 27, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 04:39:34PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > >> if (READ_ONCE(vma->anon_vma) != NULL) {
> > > >>  // we now know that vma->anon_vma cannot change anymore
> > > >>
> > > >>  // access the same memory location again with a plain load
> > > >>  struct anon_vma *a = vma->anon_vma;
> > > >>
> > > >>  // this needs to be address-dependency-ordered against one of
> > > >>  // the loads from vma->anon_vma
> > > >>  struct anon_vma *root = a->root;
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Is this fine? If it is not fine just because the compiler might
> > > >> reorder the plain load of vma->anon_vma before the READ_ONCE() load,
> > > >> would it be fine after adding a barrier() directly after the
> > > >> READ_ONCE()?
> > > >
> > > > I'm _very_ wary of mixing READ_ONCE() and plain loads to the same variable,
> > > > as I've run into cases where you have sequences such as:
> > > >
> > > >    // Assume *ptr is initially 0 and somebody else writes it to 1
> > > >    // concurrently
> > > >
> > > >    foo = *ptr;
> > > >    bar = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
> > > >    baz = *ptr;
> > > >
> > > > and you can get foo == baz == 0 but bar == 1 because the compiler only
> > > > ends up reading from memory twice.
> > > >
> > > > That was the root cause behind f069faba6887 ("arm64: mm: Use READ_ONCE
> > > > when dereferencing pointer to pte table"), which was very unpleasant to
> > > > debug.
> > >
> > > Will, Unless I am missing something fundamental, this case is different though.
> > > This case does not care about fewer reads. As long as the first read is volatile, the subsequent loads (even plain)
> > > should work fine, no?
> > > I am not seeing how the compiler can screw that up, so please do enlighten :).
> >
> > I guess the thing I'm worried about is if there is some previous read of
> > 'vma->anon_vma' which didn't use READ_ONCE() and the compiler kept the
> > result around in a register. In that case, 'a' could be NULL, even if
> > the READ_ONCE(vma->anon_vma) returned non-NULL.
> 
> If I can be a bit brave enough to say -- that appears to be a compiler
> bug to me. It seems that the compiler in such an instance violates the
> "Sequential Consistency Per Variable" rule? I mean if it can't even
> keep SCPV true for a same memory-location load (plain or not) for a
> sequence of code, how can it expect the hardware to.

It's not a compiler bug.  In this example, some other thread performs a 
write that changes vma->anon_vma from NULL to non-NULL.  This write 
races with the plain reads, and compilers are not required to obey the 
"Sequential Consistency Per Variable" rule (or indeed, any rule) when 
there is a data race.

Alan Stern