linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KEYS: Reduce smp_mb() calls in key

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: <aBYwIcy5JCOamAkj@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2025 23:02:57 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: keyrings@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
	Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KEYS: Reduce smp_mb() calls in key_put()

On Sat, May 03, 2025 at 05:39:16PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 06:25:53PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Rely only on the memory ordering of spin_unlock() when setting
> > KEY_FLAG_FINAL_PUT under key->user->lock in key_put().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  security/keys/key.c | 6 ++++--
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/security/keys/key.c b/security/keys/key.c
> > index 7198cd2ac3a3..aecbd624612d 100644
> > --- a/security/keys/key.c
> > +++ b/security/keys/key.c
> > @@ -656,10 +656,12 @@ void key_put(struct key *key)
> >  				spin_lock_irqsave(&key->user->lock, flags);
> >  				key->user->qnkeys--;
> >  				key->user->qnbytes -= key->quotalen;
> > +				set_bit(KEY_FLAG_FINAL_PUT, &key->flags);
> >  				spin_unlock_irqrestore(&key->user->lock, flags);
> > +			} else {
> > +				set_bit(KEY_FLAG_FINAL_PUT, &key->flags);
> > +				smp_mb(); /* key->user before FINAL_PUT set. */
> >  			}
> > -			smp_mb(); /* key->user before FINAL_PUT set. */
> > -			set_bit(KEY_FLAG_FINAL_PUT, &key->flags);
> 
> Oops, my bad (order swap), sorry. Should have been:
> 	
>  				spin_unlock_irqrestore(&key->user->lock, flags);
> 			} else {
> 				smp_mb(); /* key->user before FINAL_PUT set. */

You can use smp_mb__before_atomic here as it is equivalent to
smp_mb in this situation.

>  			}
> 			set_bit(KEY_FLAG_FINAL_PUT, &key->flags);
> 
> Should spin_lock()/unlock() be good enough or what good does smp_mb() do
> in that branch? Just checking if I'm missing something before sending
> fixed version.

I don't think spin_unlock alone is enough to replace an smp_mb.
A spin_lock + spin_unlock would be enough though.

However, looking at the bigger picture this smp_mb looks bogus.
What exactly is it protecting against?

The race condition that this is supposed to fix should have been
dealt with by the set_bit/test_bit of FINAL_PUT alone.  I don't
see any point in having this smb_mb at all.

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt