linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: rcu: Add cautionary note on plain-accesses to requirements

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:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 08:35:43 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: rcu: Add cautionary note on plain-accesses to requirements



> On Aug 3, 2023, at 8:09 AM, Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 2023年8月3日 11:24，Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org> 写道：
>> 
>> Add a detailed note to explain the potential side effects of
>> plain-accessing the gp pointer using a plain load, without using the
>> rcu_dereference() macros; which might trip neighboring code that does
>> use rcu_dereference().
>> 
>> I haven't verified this with a compiler, but this is what I gather from
>> the below link using Will's experience with READ_ONCE().
>> 
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230728124412.GA21303@willie-the-truck/
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
>> ---
>> .../RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst  | 32 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
>> index f3b605285a87..e0b896d3fb9b 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst
>> @@ -376,6 +376,38 @@ mechanism, most commonly locking or reference counting
>> .. |high-quality implementation of C11 memory_order_consume [PDF]| replace:: high-quality implementation of C11 ``memory_order_consume`` [PDF]
>> .. _high-quality implementation of C11 memory_order_consume [PDF]: http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/RCU/consume.2015.07.13a.pdf
>> 
>> +Note that, there can be strange side effects (due to compiler optimizations) if
>> +``gp`` is ever accessed using a plain load (i.e. without ``READ_ONCE()`` or
>> +``rcu_dereference()``) potentially hurting any succeeding
>> +``rcu_dereference()``. For example, consider the code:
>> +
>> +   ::
>> +
>> +       1 bool do_something_gp(void)
>> +       2 {
>> +       3   void *tmp;
>> +       4   rcu_read_lock();
>> +       5   tmp = gp; // Plain-load of GP.
>> +       6   printk("Point gp = %p\n", tmp);
>> +       7
>> +       8   p = rcu_dereference(gp);
>> +       9   if (p) {
>> +      10     do_something(p->a, p->b);
>> +      11     rcu_read_unlock();
>> +      12     return true;
>> +      13   }
>> +      14   rcu_read_unlock();
>> +      15   return false;
>> +      16 }
>> +
>> +The behavior of plain accesses involved in a data race is non-deterministic in
>> +the face of compiler optimizations. Since accesses to the ``gp`` pointer is
>> +by-design a data race, the compiler could trip this code by caching the value
>> +of ``gp`` into a register in line 5, and then using the value of the register
>> +to satisfy the load in line 10. Thus it is important to never mix
> 
> Will’s example is:
> 
>     // Assume *ptr is initially 0 and somebody else writes it to 1
>     // concurrently
> 
>     foo = *ptr;
>     bar = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
>     baz = *ptr;
> 
> Then the compiler is within its right to reorder it to:
> 
>    foo = *ptr;
>    baz = *ptr;
>    bar = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
> 
> So, the result foo == baz == 0 but bar == 1 is perfectly legal.

Yes, a bad outcome is perfectly legal amidst data race. Who said it is not legal?

> 
> But the example here is different,

That is intentional. Wills discussion partially triggered this. Though I am wondering
if we should document that as well.

> the compiler can not use the value loaded from line 5
> unless the compiler can deduce that the tmp is equals to p in which case the address dependency
> doesn’t exist anymore.
> 
> What am I missing here?

Maybe you are trying to rationalize too much that the sequence mentioned cannot result
in a counter intuitive outcome like I did?

The point AFAIU is not just about line 10 but that the compiler can replace any of the
lines after the plain access with the cached value.

Thanks.



> 
>> +plain accesses of a memory location with rcu_dereference() of the same memory
>> +location, in code involved in a data race.
>> +
>> In short, updaters use rcu_assign_pointer() and readers use
>> rcu_dereference(), and these two RCU API elements work together to
>> ensure that readers have a consistent view of newly added data elements.
>> -- 
>> 2.41.0.585.gd2178a4bd4-goog
>> 
>