linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf v3] powerpc/bpf: enforce full ordering for ATOMIC operations with BPF

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: Tue, 14 May 2024 11:09:07 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>, Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann
 <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai
 Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu
 <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend
 <john.fastabend@...il.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav
 Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa
 <jolsa@...nel.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Christophe Leroy
 <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
 <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>, Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v3] powerpc/bpf: enforce full ordering for ATOMIC
 operations with BPF_FETCH

Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org> writes:
> Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org> writes:
>> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:02:48AM GMT, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
>>> The Linux Kernel Memory Model [1][2] requires RMW operations that have a
>>> return value to be fully ordered.
>>> 
>>> BPF atomic operations with BPF_FETCH (including BPF_XCHG and
>>> BPF_CMPXCHG) return a value back so they need to be JITed to fully
>>> ordered operations. POWERPC currently emits relaxed operations for
>>> these.
>>> 
>>> We can show this by running the following litmus-test:
>>> 
>>> PPC SB+atomic_add+fetch
>>> 
>>> {
>>> 0:r0=x;  (* dst reg assuming offset is 0 *)
>>> 0:r1=2;  (* src reg *)
>>> 0:r2=1;
>>> 0:r4=y;  (* P0 writes to this, P1 reads this *)
>>> 0:r5=z;  (* P1 writes to this, P0 reads this *)
>>> 0:r6=0;
>>> 
>>> 1:r2=1;
>>> 1:r4=y;
>>> 1:r5=z;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> P0                      | P1            ;
>>> stw         r2, 0(r4)   | stw  r2,0(r5) ;
>>>                         |               ;
>>> loop:lwarx  r3, r6, r0  |               ;
>>> mr          r8, r3      |               ;
>>> add         r3, r3, r1  | sync          ;
>>> stwcx.      r3, r6, r0  |               ;
>>> bne         loop        |               ;
>>> mr          r1, r8      |               ;
>>>                         |               ;
>>> lwa         r7, 0(r5)   | lwa  r7,0(r4) ;
>>> 
>>> ~exists(0:r7=0 /\ 1:r7=0)
>>> 
>>> Witnesses
>>> Positive: 9 Negative: 3
>>> Condition ~exists (0:r7=0 /\ 1:r7=0)
>>> Observation SB+atomic_add+fetch Sometimes 3 9
>>> 
>>> This test shows that the older store in P0 is reordered with a newer
>>> load to a different address. Although there is a RMW operation with
>>> fetch between them. Adding a sync before and after RMW fixes the issue:
>>> 
>>> Witnesses
>>> Positive: 9 Negative: 0
>>> Condition ~exists (0:r7=0 /\ 1:r7=0)
>>> Observation SB+atomic_add+fetch Never 0 9
>>> 
>>> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>>> [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/atomic_t.txt
>>> 
>>> Fixes: 65112709115f ("powerpc/bpf/64: add support for BPF_ATOMIC bitwise operations")
>>
>> As I noted in v2, I think that is the wrong commit. This fixes the below 
>
> Sorry for missing this. Would this need another version or your message
> below will make it work with the stable process?

No need for another version. b4 should pick up those tags, or if not
I'll add them by hand.

cheers