From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: use correct memory barriers for crng_node_pool
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:58:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200917165802.GC855@sol.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200917072644.GA5311@gondor.apana.org.au>
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 05:26:44PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> >
> > When a CPU selects which CRNG to use, it accesses crng_node_pool without
> > a memory barrier. That's wrong, because crng_node_pool can be set by
> > another CPU concurrently. Without a memory barrier, the crng_state that
> > is used might not appear to be fully initialized.
>
> The only architecture that requires a barrier for data dependency
> is Alpha. The correct primitive to ensure that barrier is present
> is smp_barrier_depends, or you could just use READ_ONCE.
>
smp_load_acquire() is obviously correct, whereas READ_ONCE() is an optimization
that is difficult to tell whether it's correct or not. For trivial data
structures it's "easy" to tell. But whenever there is a->b where b is an
internal implementation detail of another kernel subsystem, the use of which
could involve accesses to global or static data (for example, spin_lock()
accessing lockdep stuff), a control dependency can slip in.
The last time I tried to use READ_ONCE(), it started a big controversy
(https://lkml.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200713033330.205104-1-ebiggers@kernel.org/T/#u,
https://lkml.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200717044427.68747-1-ebiggers@kernel.org/T/#u,
https://lwn.net/Articles/827180/). In the end, people refused to even allow the
READ_ONCE() optimization to be documented, because they felt that
smp_load_acquire() should just be used instead.
So I think we should just go with smp_load_acquire()...
- Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-17 16:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-16 23:30 [PATCH] random: use correct memory barriers for crng_node_pool Eric Biggers
2020-09-17 7:26 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-17 16:58 ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2020-09-21 8:19 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-21 15:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-21 22:11 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-21 23:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-21 23:51 ` Herbert Xu
2020-09-22 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-22 18:59 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-22 20:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-21 23:52 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-22 18:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-22 19:09 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-22 20:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-22 21:55 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-25 0:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-09-25 2:09 ` Eric Biggers
2020-09-25 3:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-02 3:07 ` Eric Biggers
2020-10-08 18:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20200917165802.GC855@sol.localdomain \
--to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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).