linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] compiler.h: Introduce ptr

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: <D31AF4E7-B9D5-4D2F-A4B9-1E12B5E69549@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 06:26:39 +0800
From: Alan Huang <mmpgouride@...il.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
 John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
 Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
 Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
 Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
 "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
 Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 maged.michael@...il.com,
 Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
 Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
 Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>,
 RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org,
 lkmm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] compiler.h: Introduce ptr_eq() to preserve address
 dependency

2024年9月28日 23:55，Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote：
> 
> On 2024-09-28 17:49, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 11:32:18AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-28 16:49, Alan Stern wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 09:51:27AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>> equality, which does not preserve address dependencies and allows the
>>>>> following misordering speculations:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - If @b is a constant, the compiler can issue the loads which depend
>>>>>    on @a before loading @a.
>>>>> - If @b is a register populated by a prior load, weakly-ordered
>>>>>    CPUs can speculate loads which depend on @a before loading @a.
>>>> 
>>>> It shouldn't matter whether @a and @b are constants, registers, or
>>>> anything else.  All that matters is that the compiler uses the wrong
>>>> one, which allows weakly ordered CPUs to speculate loads you wouldn't
>>>> expect it to, based on the source code alone.
>>> 
>>> I only partially agree here.
>>> 
>>> On weakly-ordered architectures, indeed we don't care whether the
>>> issue is caused by the compiler reordering the code (constant)
>>> or the CPU speculating the load (registers).
>>> 
>>> However, on strongly-ordered architectures, AFAIU, only the constant
>>> case is problematic (compiler reordering the dependent load), because
>> I thought you were trying to prevent the compiler from using one pointer
>> instead of the other, not trying to prevent it from reordering anything.
>> Isn't this the point the documentation wants to get across when it says
>> that comparing pointers can be dangerous?
> 
> The motivation for introducing ptr_eq() is indeed because the
> compiler barrier is not sufficient to prevent the compiler from
> using one pointer instead of the other.

barrier_data(&b) prevents that.

> 
> But it turns out that ptr_eq() is also a good tool to prevent the
> compiler from reordering loads in case where the comparison is
> done against a constant.
> 
>>> CPU speculating the loads across the control dependency is not an
>>> issue.
>>> 
>>> So am I tempted to keep examples that clearly state whether
>>> the issue is caused by compiler reordering instructions, or by
>>> CPU speculation.
>> Isn't it true that on strongly ordered CPUs, a compiler barrier is
>> sufficient to prevent the rcu_dereference() problem?  So the whole idea
>> behind ptr_eq() is that it prevents the problem on all CPUs.
> 
> Correct. But given that we have ptr_eq(), it's good to show how it
> equally prevents the compiler from reordering address-dependent loads
> (comparison with constant) *and* prevents the compiler from using
> one pointer rather than the other (comparison between two non-constant
> pointers) which affects speculation on weakly-ordered CPUs.
> 
>> You can make your examples as specific as you like, but the fact remains
>> that ptr_eq() is meant to prevent situations where both:
>> The compiler uses the wrong pointer for a load, and
>> The CPU performs the load earlier than you want.
>> If either one of those doesn't hold then the problem won't arise.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> https://www.efficios.com
> 
>