From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Maddie Stone <maddiestone@google.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@android.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/21] list: Annotate lockless list primitives with data_race()
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 17:59:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200324165938.GA2521386@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez1c5Rjo+RZRW-qR7h40zT4mT8iQv5m3h0qTjfFpsckEsg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:38:30PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:26 PM Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:20:45PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:37 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > Some list predicates can be used locklessly even with the non-RCU list
> > > > implementations, since they effectively boil down to a test against
> > > > NULL. For example, checking whether or not a list is empty is safe even
> > > > in the presence of a concurrent, tearing write to the list head pointer.
> > > > Similarly, checking whether or not an hlist node has been hashed is safe
> > > > as well.
> > > >
> > > > Annotate these lockless list predicates with data_race() and READ_ONCE()
> > > > so that KCSAN and the compiler are aware of what's going on. The writer
> > > > side can then avoid having to use WRITE_ONCE() in the non-RCU
> > > > implementation.
> > > [...]
> > > > static inline int list_empty(const struct list_head *head)
> > > > {
> > > > - return READ_ONCE(head->next) == head;
> > > > + return data_race(READ_ONCE(head->next) == head);
> > > > }
> > > [...]
> > > > static inline int hlist_unhashed(const struct hlist_node *h)
> > > > {
> > > > - return !READ_ONCE(h->pprev);
> > > > + return data_race(!READ_ONCE(h->pprev));
> > > > }
> > >
> > > This is probably valid in practice for hlist_unhashed(), which
> > > compares with NULL, as long as the most significant byte of all kernel
> > > pointers is non-zero; but I think list_empty() could realistically
> > > return false positives in the presence of a concurrent tearing store?
> > > This could break the following code pattern:
> > >
> > > /* optimistic lockless check */
> > > if (!list_empty(&some_list)) {
> > > /* slowpath */
> > > mutex_lock(&some_mutex);
> > > list_for_each(tmp, &some_list) {
> > > ...
> > > }
> > > mutex_unlock(&some_mutex);
> > > }
> > >
> > > (I'm not sure whether patterns like this appear commonly though.)
> >
> >
> > I would hope not as the list could go "empty" before the lock is
> > grabbed. That pattern would be wrong.
>
> If the list becomes empty in between, the loop just iterates over
> nothing, and the effect is no different from what you'd get if you had
> bailed out before. But sure, you have to be aware that that can
> happen.
Doh, yeah, so it is safe, crazy, but safe :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-24 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-24 15:36 [RFC PATCH 00/21] Improve list integrity checking Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 01/21] list: Remove hlist_unhashed_lockless() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:27 ` Greg KH
2020-03-30 23:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 02/21] list: Remove hlist_nulls_unhashed_lockless() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:27 ` Greg KH
2020-03-30 23:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 03/21] list: Annotate lockless list primitives with data_race() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:20 ` Jann Horn
2020-03-24 16:26 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 16:38 ` Jann Horn
2020-03-24 16:59 ` Greg KH [this message]
2020-03-24 18:22 ` Jann Horn
2020-03-24 16:23 ` Marco Elver
2020-03-24 21:33 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-31 13:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-01 6:34 ` Marco Elver
2020-04-01 8:40 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-24 16:56 ` Jann Horn
2020-03-24 21:32 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-04-24 17:39 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-27 19:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 04/21] timers: Use hlist_unhashed() instead of open-coding in timer_pending() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:30 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 05/21] list: Comment missing WRITE_ONCE() in __list_del() Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 06/21] list: Remove superfluous WRITE_ONCE() from hlist_nulls implementation Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 07/21] Revert "list: Use WRITE_ONCE() when adding to lists and hlists" Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 08/21] Revert "list: Use WRITE_ONCE() when initializing list_head structures" Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-31 13:11 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-31 13:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 09/21] list: Remove unnecessary WRITE_ONCE() from hlist_bl_add_before() Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-31 12:37 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 10/21] kernel-hacking: Make DEBUG_{LIST,PLIST,SG,NOTIFIERS} non-debug options Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:42 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 11/21] list: Add integrity checking to hlist implementation Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 12/21] list: Poison ->next pointer for non-RCU deletion of 'hlist_nulls_node' Will Deacon
2020-03-30 23:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 13/21] list: Add integrity checking to hlist_nulls implementation Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 14/21] plist: Use CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION instead of explicit {BUG,WARN}_ON() Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:42 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 15/21] list_bl: Use CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION instead of custom BUG_ON() wrapper Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 16/21] list_bl: Extend integrity checking in deletion routines Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 17/21] linux/bit_spinlock.h: Include linux/processor.h Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:28 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 21:08 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 18/21] list_bl: Move integrity checking out of line Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 19/21] list_bl: Extend integrity checking to cover the same cases as 'hlist' Will Deacon
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 20/21] list: Format CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION error messages consistently Will Deacon
2020-03-24 16:40 ` Greg KH
2020-03-24 15:36 ` [RFC PATCH 21/21] lkdtm: Extend list corruption checks Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200324165938.GA2521386@kroah.com \
--to=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maddiestone@google.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).