netdev - Re: [PATCH] bpf: don't fail kmalloc while releasing raw

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: <20201118045747.GN1437@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 20:57:47 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: don't fail kmalloc while releasing raw_tp

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 08:09:22PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:42:44 -0800
> Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > Indeed with a stub function, I don't see any need for READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE.  
> > 
> > I'm not sure if this is a practical issue, but without WRITE_ONCE, can't
> > the write be torn?  A racing __traceiter_ could potentially see a
> > half-modified function pointer, which wouldn't work out too well.
> 
> This has been discussed before, and Linus said:
> 
> "We add READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE annotations when they make sense. Not
> because of some theoretical "compiler is free to do garbage"
> arguments. If such garbage happens, we need to fix the compiler"
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wi_KeD1M-_-_SU_H92vJ-yNkDnAGhAS=RR1yNNGWKW+aA@mail.gmail.com/

I have to ask...  Did the ARM compilers get fixed?  As of a few
months ago, they would tear stores of some constant values.

> > This was actually my gut instinct before I wrote the __GFP_NOFAIL
> > instead -- currently that whole array's memory ordering is provided by
> > RCU and I didn't dive deep enough to evaluate getting too clever with
> > atomic modifications to it.
> 
> The pointers are always going to be the architecture word size (by
> definition), and any compiler that tears a write of a long is broken.

But yes, if the write is of a non-constant pointer, the compiler does
have less leverage.

							Thanx, Paul