linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] kcsan, seqlock: Fix incorrect assumption in read

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: <CANpmjNOyE=ZxyMEyEf6i7TX-jEvhiJN5ASFY0FTWRF3azDAB-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 10:50:50 +0100
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, 
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] kcsan, seqlock: Fix incorrect assumption in read_seqbegin()

On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 10:34, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 04:43:09PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > During testing of the preceding changes, I noticed that in some cases,
> > current->kcsan_ctx.in_flat_atomic remained true until task exit. This is
> > obviously wrong, because _all_ accesses for the given task will be
> > treated as atomic, resulting in false negatives i.e. missed data races.
> >
> > Debugging led to fs/dcache.c, where we can see this usage of seqlock:
> >
> >       struct dentry *d_lookup(const struct dentry *parent, const struct qstr *name)
> >       {
> >               struct dentry *dentry;
> >               unsigned seq;
> >
> >               do {
> >                       seq = read_seqbegin(&rename_lock);
> >                       dentry = __d_lookup(parent, name);
> >                       if (dentry)
> >                               break;
> >               } while (read_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq));
> >       [...]
>
>
> How's something like this completely untested hack?
>
>
>         struct dentry *dentry;
>
>         read_seqcount_scope (&rename_lock) {
>                 dentry = __d_lookup(parent, name);
>                 if (dentry)
>                         break;
>         }
>
>
> But perhaps naming isn't right, s/_scope/_loop/ ?

_loop seems straightforward.

> --- a/include/linux/seqlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/seqlock.h
> @@ -829,6 +829,33 @@ static inline unsigned read_seqretry(con
>         return read_seqcount_retry(&sl->seqcount, start);
>  }
>
> +
> +static inline unsigned read_seq_scope_begin(const struct seqlock_t *sl)
> +{
> +       unsigned ret = read_seqcount_begin(&sl->seqcount);
> +       kcsan_atomic_next(0);
> +       kcsan_flat_atomic_begin();
> +       return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void read_seq_scope_end(unsigned *seq)
> +{
> +       kcsan_flat_atomic_end();

If we are guaranteed to always have one _begin paired by a matching
_end, we can s/kcsan_flat_atomic/kcsan_nestable_atomic/ for these.

> +}
> +
> +static inline bool read_seq_scope_retry(const struct seqlock_t *sl, unsigned *seq)
> +{
> +       bool done = !read_seqcount_retry(&sl->seqcount, *seq);
> +       if (!done)
> +               *seq = read_seqcount_begin(&sl->seqcount);
> +       return done;
> +}
> +
> +#define read_seqcount_scope(sl) \
> +       for (unsigned seq __cleanup(read_seq_scope_end) =               \
> +                       read_seq_scope_begin(sl), done = 0;             \
> +            !done; done = read_seq_scope_retry(sl, &seq))
> +

That's nice! I think before we fully moved over to C11, I recall Mark
and I discussed something like that (on IRC?) but gave up until C11
landed and then we forgot. ;-)