linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: memory-barriers: Add note on plain-accesses to address-dependency barriers

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: <3f53035f-3251-4531-b9b9-e12f371c1051@paulmck-laptop>
Date:   Fri, 4 Aug 2023 06:52:32 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: memory-barriers: Add note on plain-accesses to
 address-dependency barriers

On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 05:11:27AM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:52:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 03:24:07AM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > The compiler has the ability to cause misordering by destroying
> > > address-dependency barriers if comparison operations are used. Add a
> > > note about this to memory-barriers.txt and point to rcu-dereference.rst
> > > for more information.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 5 +++++
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > > index 06e14efd8662..acc8ec5ce563 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> > > @@ -435,6 +435,11 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
> > >       variables such as READ_ONCE() and rcu_dereference() provide implicit
> > >       address-dependency barriers.
> > >  
> > > +     [!] Note that address dependency barriers can be destroyed by comparison
> > > +     of a pointer obtained by a marked accessor such as READ_ONCE() or
> > > +     rcu_dereference() with some value.  For an example of this, see
> > > +     rcu_dereference.rst (part where the comparison of pointers is discussed).
> > 
> > Hmmm...
> > 
> > Given that this is in a section marked "historical" (for the old
> > smp_read_barrier_depends() API), why not instead add a pointer to
> > Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst to the beginning of the section,
> > noted as the updated material?
> 
> Sounds good. There's also another section in the same file on Address
> dependency barriers (also marked historical). So something like the
> following?

Given a Signed-off-by and so forth, I would be happy to take this one.

							Thanx, Paul

> ---8<-----------------------
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> index acc8ec5ce563..ba50220716ca 100644
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -396,6 +396,10 @@ Memory barriers come in four basic varieties:
>  
>  
>   (2) Address-dependency barriers (historical).
> +     [!] This section is marked as HISTORICAL: For more up-to-date
> +     information, including how compiler transformations related to pointer
> +     comparisons can sometimes cause problems, see
> +     Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst.
>  
>       An address-dependency barrier is a weaker form of read barrier.  In the
>       case where two loads are performed such that the second depends on the
> @@ -561,6 +565,9 @@ There are certain things that the Linux kernel memory barriers do not guarantee:
>  
>  ADDRESS-DEPENDENCY BARRIERS (HISTORICAL)
>  ----------------------------------------
> +[!] This section is marked as HISTORICAL: For more up-to-date information,
> +including how compiler transformations related to pointer comparisons can
> +sometimes cause problems, see Documentation/RCU/rcu_dereference.rst.
>  
>  As of v4.15 of the Linux kernel, an smp_mb() was added to READ_ONCE() for
>  DEC Alpha, which means that about the only people who need to pay attention