linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] memtest: use {READ,WRITE}

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, 13 Mar 2024 10:21:41 -0700
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Qiang Zhang <qiang4.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
	Stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memtest: use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE in memory scanning

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 04:04:23PM +0800, Qiang Zhang wrote:
> memtest failed to find bad memory when compiled with clang. So use
> {WRITE,READ}_ONCE  to access memory to avoid compiler over optimization.

This commit message is severely lacking in details in my opinion,
especially for a patch marked for stable. Did a kernel or LLVM change
cause this (i.e., has this always been an issue or is it a recent
regression)? What is the transformation that LLVM does to break the test
and why is using READ_ONCE() or WRITE_ONCE() sufficient to resolve it?

> Cc: <Stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Qiang Zhang <qiang4.zhang@...el.com>
> ---
>  mm/memtest.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memtest.c b/mm/memtest.c
> index 32f3e9dda837..c2c609c39119 100644
> --- a/mm/memtest.c
> +++ b/mm/memtest.c
> @@ -51,10 +51,10 @@ static void __init memtest(u64 pattern, phys_addr_t start_phys, phys_addr_t size
>  	last_bad = 0;
>  
>  	for (p = start; p < end; p++)
> -		*p = pattern;
> +		WRITE_ONCE(*p, pattern);
>  
>  	for (p = start; p < end; p++, start_phys_aligned += incr) {
> -		if (*p == pattern)
> +		if (READ_ONCE(*p) == pattern)
>  			continue;
>  		if (start_phys_aligned == last_bad + incr) {
>  			last_bad += incr;
> -- 
> 2.39.2
>