linux-kernel - Re: [Bug] WARNING in static_key_disable

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: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:12:07 -0500
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sam Sun <samsun1006219@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzkaller@...glegroups.com, xrivendell7@...il.com, ardb@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug] WARNING in static_key_disable_cpuslocked



On 3/6/24 2:31 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:54:20AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> Now I guess the question is, why is something trying to disable something
>> that is not enabled? Is the above scenario OK? Or should the users of
>> static_key also prevent this?
> 
> Apparently that's an allowed scenario, as the jump label code seems to
> be actively trying to support it.  Basically the last one "wins".
> 
> See for example:
> 
>    1dbb6704de91 ("jump_label: Fix concurrent static_key_enable/disable()")
> 
> Also the purpose of the first atomic_read() is to do a quick test before
> grabbing the jump lock.  So instead of grabbing the jump lock earlier,
> it should actually do the first test atomically:

Makes sense but the enable path can also set key->enabled to -1. So I 
think a concurrent disable could then see the -1 in tmp and still 
trigger the WARN. So I think we could change the WARN to be:
WARN_ON_ONCE(tmp != 0 && tmp != -1). And also add a similar check
for enable if we have enable vs enable racing?

Although it seems like the set key->enabled to -1 while used in the 
inc/dec API isn't really doing anything in the enable/disable part here?
But then the key->enabled I think has to move in front of the 
jump_label_update() to make that part work right...

Thanks,

-Jason


> 
> diff --git a/kernel/jump_label.c b/kernel/jump_label.c
> index d9c822bbffb8..f29c47930d46 100644
> --- a/kernel/jump_label.c
> +++ b/kernel/jump_label.c
> @@ -191,11 +191,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_slow_inc);
>   
>   void static_key_enable_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
>   {
> +	int tmp;
> +
>   	STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(key);
>   	lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
>   
> -	if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) > 0) {
> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&key->enabled) != 1);
> +	tmp = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
> +	if (tmp != 0) {
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(tmp != 1);
>   		return;
>   	}
>   
> @@ -222,11 +225,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(static_key_enable);
>   
>   void static_key_disable_cpuslocked(struct static_key *key)
>   {
> +	int tmp;
> +
>   	STATIC_KEY_CHECK_USE(key);
>   	lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
>   
> -	if (atomic_read(&key->enabled) != 1) {
> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&key->enabled) != 0);
> +	tmp = atomic_read(&key->enabled);
> +	if (tmp != 1) {
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(tmp != 0);
>   		return;
>   	}
>