netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] af_unix: fix a fatal race with bit fields

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]

Date:	Wed, 1 May 2013 13:08:38 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"Ambrose Feinstein" <ambrose@...gle.com>,
	<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] af_unix: fix a fatal race with bit fields

On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 11:39 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 18:12 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > 
> > Using bit fields is dangerous on ppc64, as the compiler uses 64bit
> > instructions to manipulate them. If the 64bit word includes any
> > atomic_t or spinlock_t, we can lose critical concurrent changes.
> > 
> > This is happening in af_unix, where unix_sk(sk)->gc_candidate/
> > gc_maybe_cycle/lock share the same 64bit word.
> > 
> > This leads to fatal deadlock, as one/several cpus spin forever
> > on a spinlock that will never be available again.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Ambrose Feinstein <ambrose@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
> > Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
> > ---
> > 
> > Could ppc64 experts confirm using byte is safe, or should we really add
> > a 32bit hole after the spinlock ? If so, I wonder how many other places
> > need a change...
> 
> Wow, nice one !
> 
> I'm not even completely certain bytes are safe to be honest, though
> probably more than bitfields. I'll poke our compiler people.

There is a longstanding and hard-to-fix bug in gcc that is specific to
bitfields.  I think that the underlying type isn't propagated, so when
it comes to code generation the compiler doesn't know the natural width
for the memory access.

As for bytes - early Alphas couldn't load/store less than 32 bits, but I
doubt anyone cares any more.

> The worry is of course how many more of these do we potentially have ? 
> We might be able to automate finding these issues with sparse, I
> suppose.
> 
> Also I'd be surprised if ppc64 is the only one with that problem... what
> about sparc64 and arm64 ?

I expect they can have the same general problem, but gcc may be more or
less keen to generate 64-bit load/store instructions for bitfields on
different architectures.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html