linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 3/3] atomic: Add alignment check to instrumented atomic operations

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: <20250915080054.GS3419281@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 10:00:54 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/3] atomic: Add alignment check to instrumented atomic
 operations

On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 10:45:29AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> 
> Add a Kconfig option for debug builds which logs a warning when an
> instrumented atomic operation takes place at some location that isn't
> a long word boundary. Some platforms don't trap for this.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250901093600.GF4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> ---
> This patch differs slightly from Peter's code which checked for natural
> alignment.
> ---
>  include/linux/instrumented.h |  4 ++++
>  lib/Kconfig.debug            | 10 ++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/instrumented.h b/include/linux/instrumented.h
> index 711a1f0d1a73..55f5685971a1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/instrumented.h
> +++ b/include/linux/instrumented.h
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>  #ifndef _LINUX_INSTRUMENTED_H
>  #define _LINUX_INSTRUMENTED_H
>  
> +#include <linux/bug.h>
>  #include <linux/compiler.h>
>  #include <linux/kasan-checks.h>
>  #include <linux/kcsan-checks.h>
> @@ -67,6 +68,7 @@ static __always_inline void instrument_atomic_read(const volatile void *v, size_
>  {
>  	kasan_check_read(v, size);
>  	kcsan_check_atomic_read(v, size);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC) && ((unsigned long)v & (sizeof(long) - 1)));
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -81,6 +83,7 @@ static __always_inline void instrument_atomic_write(const volatile void *v, size
>  {
>  	kasan_check_write(v, size);
>  	kcsan_check_atomic_write(v, size);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC) && ((unsigned long)v & (sizeof(long) - 1)));
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -95,6 +98,7 @@ static __always_inline void instrument_atomic_read_write(const volatile void *v,
>  {
>  	kasan_check_write(v, size);
>  	kcsan_check_atomic_read_write(v, size);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC) && ((unsigned long)v & (sizeof(long) - 1)));
>  }

Right, so why aren't we trusting the size argument? And instead
mandating a possibly larger alignment?

Note how things like test_and_set_bit() will use sizeof(long), while
atomic_set() will use sizeof(*v), which, on LP64 architectures are very
much not the same.

The same with atomic_*() vs atomic_long_*() / atomic64_*(), they will
have different alignment requirements.

And then there is cmpxchg(), that can be u8 u16, u32 and u64 depending
on the user. And then there is cmpxchg128().

I really don't see how using long here is correct.