Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:37:07 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert struct pid count to refcount_t

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 05:26:42PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/28, Jann Horn wrote:
> >
> > Since we're just talking about RCU stuff now, adding Paul McKenney to
> > the thread.
> 
> Since you added Paul let me add more confusion to this thread ;)

Woo-hoo!!!  More confusion!  Bring it on!!!  ;-)

> There were some concerns about the lack of barriers in put_pid(), but I can't
> find that old discussion and I forgot the result of that discussion...
> 
> Paul, could you confirm that this code
> 
> 	CPU_0		CPU_1
> 
> 	X = 1;		if (READ_ONCE(Y))
> 	mb();			X = 2;
> 	Y = 1;		BUG_ON(X != 2);
> 
> 
> is correct? I think it is, control dependency pairs with mb(), right?

The BUG_ON() is supposed to happen at the end of time, correct?
As written, there is (in the strict sense) a data race between the load
of X in the BUG_ON() and CPU_0's store to X.  In a less strict sense,
you could of course argue that this data race is harmless, especially
if X is a single byte.  But the more I talk to compiler writers, the
less comfortable I become with data races in general.  :-/

So I would also feel better if the "Y = 1" was WRITE_ONCE().

On the other hand, this is a great opportunity to try out Alan Stern's
prototype plain-accesses patch to the Linux Kernel Memory Model (LKMM)!

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1903191459270.1593-200000@iolanthe.rowland.org

Also adding Alan on CC.

Here is what I believe is the litmus test that your are interested in:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
C OlegNesterov-put_pid

{}

P0(int *x, int *y)
{
	*x = 1;
	smp_mb();
	*y = 1;
}

P1(int *x, int *y)
{
	int r1;

	r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
	if (r1)
		*x = 2;
}

exists (1:r1=1 /\ ~x=2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Running this through herd with Alan's patch detects the data race
and says that the undesired outcome is allowed:

	$ herd7  -conf linux-kernel.cfg /tmp/OlegNesterov-put_pid.litmus 
	Test OlegNesterov-put_pid Allowed
	States 3
	1:r1=0; x=1;
	1:r1=1; x=1;
	1:r1=1; x=2;
	Ok
	Witnesses
	Positive: 1 Negative: 2
	Flag data-race
	Condition exists (1:r1=1 /\ not (x=2))
	Observation OlegNesterov-put_pid Sometimes 1 2
	Time OlegNesterov-put_pid 0.00
	Hash=a3e0043ad753effa860fea37eeba0a76

Using WRITE_ONCE() for P0()'s store to y still allows this outcome,
although it does remove the "Flag data-race".

Using WRITE_ONCE() for both P0()'s store to y and P1()'s store to x
gets rid of both the "Flag data-race" and the undesired outcome:

	$ herd7  -conf linux-kernel.cfg /tmp/OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-WO.litmus 
	Test OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-WO Allowed
	States 2
	1:r1=0; x=1;
	1:r1=1; x=2;
	No
	Witnesses
	Positive: 0 Negative: 2
	Condition exists (1:r1=1 /\ not (x=2))
	Observation OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-WO Never 0 2
	Time OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-WO 0.01
	Hash=6e1643e3c5e4739b590bde0a8e8a918e

Here is the corresponding litmus test, in case I messed something up:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
C OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-WO

{}

P0(int *x, int *y)
{
	*x = 1;
	smp_mb();
	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
}

P1(int *x, int *y)
{
	int r1;

	r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
	if (r1)
		WRITE_ONCE(*x, 2);
}

exists (1:r1=1 /\ ~x=2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> If not, then put_pid() needs atomic_read_acquire() as it was proposed in that
> discussion.

Good point, let's try with smp_load_acquire() in P1():

	$ herd7  -conf linux-kernel.cfg /tmp/OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-sla.litmus 
	Test OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-sla Allowed
	States 2
	1:r1=0; x=1;
	1:r1=1; x=2;
	No
	Witnesses
	Positive: 0 Negative: 2
	Condition exists (1:r1=1 /\ not (x=2))
	Observation OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-sla Never 0 2
	Time OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-sla 0.01
	Hash=4fb0276eabf924793dec1970199db3a6

This also works.  Here is the litmus test:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
C OlegNesterov-put_pid-WO-sla

{}

P0(int *x, int *y)
{
	*x = 1;
	smp_mb();
	WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
}

P1(int *x, int *y)
{
	int r1;

	r1 = smp_load_acquire(y);
	if (r1)
		*x = 2;
}

exists (1:r1=1 /\ ~x=2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demoting P0()'s WRITE_ONCE() to a plain write while leaving P1()'s
smp_load_acquire() gets us a data race and allows the undesired
outcome:

	$ herd7  -conf linux-kernel.cfg /tmp/OlegNesterov-put_pid-sla.litmus 
	Test OlegNesterov-put_pid-sla Allowed
	States 3
	1:r1=0; x=1;
	1:r1=1; x=1;
	1:r1=1; x=2;
	Ok
	Witnesses
	Positive: 1 Negative: 2
	Flag data-race
	Condition exists (1:r1=1 /\ not (x=2))
	Observation OlegNesterov-put_pid-sla Sometimes 1 2
	Time OlegNesterov-put_pid-sla 0.01
	Hash=ec6f71f3d9f7cd6e45a874c872e3d946

But what if you are certain that the compiler cannot mess up your use
of plain C-language loads and stores?  Then simply tell LKMM that they
are READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE(), respectively.  LKMM is admittedly
somewhat paranoid, but real C compilers really do tear stores of certain
constants on systems (like x86) that have store-immediate instructions,
so a bit of paranoia is not misplaced here.  ;-)

Plus please note that this patch to LKMM is prototype and thus subject
to change.

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.