netdev - Re: [PATCH] inet: frags: Remove unnecessary smp_store_release/READ

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: <20190531171135.GM28207@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 10:11:35 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] inet: frags: Remove unnecessary
 smp_store_release/READ_ONCE

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 08:45:47AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/31/19 7:45 AM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:24:08AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, let's call it barrier. But we need more than a barrier here then.
> > 
> > READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE is not some magical dust that you sprinkle
> > around in your code to make it work without locks.  You need to
> > understand exactly why you need them and why the code would be
> > buggy if you don't use them.
> > 
> > In this case the code doesn't need them because an implicit
> > barrier() (which is *stronger* than READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE) already
> > exists in both places.
> >
> 
> More over, adding READ_ONCE() while not really needed prevents some compiler
> optimizations.
> 
> ( Not in this particular case, since fqdir->dead is read exactly once, but we could
> have had a loop )
> 
> I have already explained that the READ_ONCE() was a leftover of the first version
> of the patch, that I refined later, adding correct (and slightly more complex) RCU
> barriers and rules.
> 
> Dmitry, the self-documentation argument is perfectly good, but Herbert
> put much nicer ad hoc comments.

I don't see all the code, but let me see if I understand based on the
pieces that I do see...

o	fqdir_exit() does a store-release to ->dead, then arranges
	for fqdir_rwork_fn() to be called from workqueue context
	after a grace period has elapsed.

o	If inet_frag_kill() is invoked only from fqdir_rwork_fn(),
	and if they are using the same fqdir, then inet_frag_kill()
	would always see fqdir->dead==true.

	But then it would not be necessary to check it, so this seems
	unlikely.

o	If fqdir_exit() does store-releases to a number of ->dead
	fields under rcu_read_lock(), and if the next fqdir_exit()
	won't happen until after all the callbacks complete
	(combination of flushing workqueues and rcu_barrier(), for
	example), then ->dead would be stable when inet_frag_kill()
	is invoked, and might be true or not.  (This again requires
	inet_frag_kill() be only invoked from fqdir_rwork_fn().)

So I can imagine cases where this would in fact work.  But did I get
it right or is something else happening?

							Thanx, Paul