netdev - Re: Missing a write memory barrier in tls

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: <ZUnwJwuqZMFNYE3x@dragonet>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 17:07:03 +0900
From: "Dae R. Jeong" <threeearcat@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: borisp@...dia.com, john.fastabend@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ywchoi@...ys.kaist.ac.kr
Subject: Re: Missing a write memory barrier in tls_init()

Hi, Jakub,

Thank you for your reply.

On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 02:36:59PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 16:11:29 +0900 Dae R. Jeong wrote:
> > In addition, I believe the {tls_setsockopt, tls_getsockopt}
> > implementation is fine because of the address dependency. I think
> > load-load reordering is prohibited in this case so we don't need a
> > read barrier.
> 
> Sounds plausible, could you send a patch?

Sure. I am doing something else today, so I will send a patch tomorrow
or the day after tomorrow.


> The smb_wmb() would be better placed in tls_init(), IMHO.

It sounds better. I will write a patch in that way.


Best regards,
Dae R. Jeong