linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 11/17] mm: replace vm_lock and detached flag with a reference count

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: <20250115111334.GE8385@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:13:34 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
	lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, david.laight.linux@...il.com,
	mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
	oliver.sang@...el.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
	david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	dave@...olabs.net, paulmck@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org,
	dhowells@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com,
	lokeshgidra@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
	shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, souravpanda@...gle.com,
	pasha.tatashin@...een.com, klarasmodin@...il.com,
	richard.weiyang@...il.com, corbet@....net,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/17] mm: replace vm_lock and detached flag with a
 reference count

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 11:48:41AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 12:14:47PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> 
> > > Replacing down_read_trylock() with the new routine loses an acquire
> > > fence. That alone is not a problem, but see below.
> > 
> > Hmm. I think this acquire fence is actually necessary. We don't want
> > the later vm_lock_seq check to be reordered and happen before we take
> > the refcount. Otherwise this might happen:
> > 
> > reader             writer
> > if (vm_lock_seq == mm_lock_seq) // check got reordered
> >         return false;
> >                        vm_refcnt += VMA_LOCK_OFFSET
> >                        vm_lock_seq == mm_lock_seq
> >                        vm_refcnt -= VMA_LOCK_OFFSET
> > if (!__refcount_inc_not_zero_limited())
> >         return false;
> > 
> > Both reader's checks will pass and the reader would read-lock a vma
> > that was write-locked.
> 
> Hmm, you're right. That acquire does matter here.

Notably, it means refcount_t is entirely unsuitable for anything
SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU, since they all will need secondary validation
conditions after the refcount succeeds.

And this is probably fine, but let me ponder this all a little more.