netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio/vringh: kill off ACCESS

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: <20161125174223.GS3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 25 Nov 2016 18:42:23 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, dbueso@...e.de,
        jasowang@...hat.com, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] virtio/vringh: kill off ACCESS_ONCE()

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:28:01PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 05:49:45PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > On 11/25/2016 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > There were several cases that I found during writing the *ONCE stuff.
> > For example there are some 32bit ppc variants with 64bit PTEs. Some for
> > others (I think sparc).
> 
> We have similar on 32-bit ARM w/ LPAE. LPAE implies that a naturally
> aligned 64-bit access is single-copy atomic, which is what makes that
> ok.
> 
> > And the mm/ code is perfectly fine with these PTE accesses being done
> > NOT atomic.
> 
> That strikes me as surprising. Is there some mutual exclusion that
> prevents writes from occuring wherever a READ_ONCE() happens to a PTE?
> 
> Otherwise, how is tearing not a problem? Does it have some pattern like
> the lockref cmpxchg?

On x86 PAE we play silly games, see arch/x86/mm/gup.c:gup_get_ptr().

Those two loads really should be READ_ONCE()/LOAD_SINGLE().