linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Fix rcu_torture_pipe_update_one()/rcu_torture

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:55:08 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linke li <lilinke99@...com>,
	joel@...lfernandes.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, dave@...olabs.net,
	frederic@...nel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qiang.zhang1211@...il.com,
	quic_neeraju@...cinc.com, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Fix
 rcu_torture_pipe_update_one()/rcu_torture_writer() data race and concurrency
 bug

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 02:09:00PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 at 13:40, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr> wrote:
> >
> > I tried the following:
> >
> > @@
> > expression x;
> > @@
> >
> > *WRITE_ONCE(x,<+...READ_ONCE(x)...+>)
> >
> > This gave a number of results, shown below.  Let me know if some of them
> > are undesirable.
> 
> Well, all the ones you list do look like garbage.
> 
> That said, quite often the garbage does seem to be "we don't actually
> care about the result". Several of them look like statistics.

[ . . . ]

> > diff -u -p /home/julia/linux/kernel/rcu/tree.c /tmp/nothing/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > --- /home/julia/linux/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ /tmp/nothing/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > @@ -1620,8 +1620,6 @@ static void rcu_gp_fqs(bool first_time)
> >         /* Clear flag to prevent immediate re-entry. */
> >         if (READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) & RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS) {
> >                 raw_spin_lock_irq_rcu_node(rnp);
> > -               WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags,
> > -                          READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) & ~RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS);
> >                 raw_spin_unlock_irq_rcu_node(rnp);
> 
> This smells bad to me. The code is holding a lock, but apparently not
> one that protects gp_flags.
> 
> And that READ_ONCE->WRITE_ONCE sequence can corrupt all the other flags.
> 
> Maybe it's fine for some reason (that reason being either that the
> ONCE operations aren't actually needed at all, or because nobody
> *really* cares about the flags), but it smells.
> 
> > @@ -1882,8 +1880,6 @@ static void rcu_report_qs_rsp(unsigned l
> >  {
> >         raw_lockdep_assert_held_rcu_node(rcu_get_root());
> >         WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_gp_in_progress());
> > -       WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags,
> > -                  READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) | RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS);
> >         raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rcu_get_root(), flags);
> 
> Same field, same lock held, same odd smelly pattern.
> 
> > -       WRITE_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags,
> > -                  READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) | RCU_GP_FLAG_FQS);
> >         raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp_old, flags);
> 
> .. and again.

In all three cases, the updates are protected by the lock, so the
READ_ONCE() is unnecessary.  I have queued a commit to remove the
READ_ONCE()s.

Thanks to both of you (Julia and Linus) for spotting these!

							Thanx, Paul