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  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:   Thu, 12 May 2022 14:31:48 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Liu Jian <liujian56@...wei.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tcp: Add READ_ONCE() to read tcp_orphan_count

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 2:18 PM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:

>
> I guess the question is, is it the norm that per_cpu() retrieves data
> that can legally be modified concurrently, or not. If not, and in most
> cases it's a bug, the annotations should be here.
>
> Paul, was there any guidance/documentation on this, but I fail to find
> it right now? (access-marking.txt doesn't say much about per-CPU
> data.)

Normally, whenever we add a READ_ONCE(), we are supposed to add a comment.

We could make an exception for per_cpu_once(), because the comment
would be centralized
at per_cpu_once() definition.

We will be stuck with READ_ONCE() in places we are using
per_cpu_ptr(), for example
in dev_fetch_sw_netstats()

diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 1461c2d9dec8099a9a2d43a704b4c6cb0375f480..b66470291d7b7e6c33161093d71e40587f9ed838
100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -10381,10 +10381,13 @@ void dev_fetch_sw_netstats(struct
rtnl_link_stats64 *s,
                stats = per_cpu_ptr(netstats, cpu);
                do {
                        start = u64_stats_fetch_begin_irq(&stats->syncp);
-                       tmp.rx_packets = stats->rx_packets;
-                       tmp.rx_bytes   = stats->rx_bytes;
-                       tmp.tx_packets = stats->tx_packets;
-                       tmp.tx_bytes   = stats->tx_bytes;
+                       /* These values can change under us.
+                        * READ_ONCE() pair with too many write sides...
+                        */
+                       tmp.rx_packets = READ_ONCE(stats->rx_packets);
+                       tmp.rx_bytes   = READ_ONCE(stats->rx_bytes);
+                       tmp.tx_packets = READ_ONCE(stats->tx_packets);
+                       tmp.tx_bytes   = READ_ONCE(stats->tx_bytes);
                } while (u64_stats_fetch_retry_irq(&stats->syncp, start));

                s->rx_packets += tmp.rx_packets;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists