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]

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2023 14:36:59 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Dae R. Jeong" <threeearcat@...il.com>
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()

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?

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