On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 04:39:34PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 1:19 AM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 11:41:01PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Patch 1 here is a straightforward fix for a race in per-VMA locking code
> > > that can lead to use-after-free; I hope we can get this one into
> > > mainline and stable quickly.
> > >
> > > Patch 2 is a fix for what I believe is a longstanding memory ordering
> > > issue in how vma->anon_vma is used across the MM subsystem; I expect
> > > that this one will have to go through a few iterations of review and
> > > potentially rewrites, because memory ordering is tricky.
> > > (If someone else wants to take over patch 2, I would be very happy.)
> > >
> > > These patches don't really belong together all that much, I'm just
> > > sending them as a series because they'd otherwise conflict.
> > >
> > > I am CCing:
> > >
> > > - Suren because patch 1 touches his code
> > > - Matthew Wilcox because he is also currently working on per-VMA
> > > locking stuff
> > > - all the maintainers/reviewers for the Kernel Memory Consistency Model
> > > so they can help figure out the READ_ONCE() vs smp_load_acquire()
> > > thing
> >
> > READ_ONCE() has weaker ordering properties than smp_load_acquire().
> >
> > For example, given a pointer gp:
> >
> > p = whichever(gp);
> > a = 1;
> > r1 = p->b;
> > if ((uintptr_t)p & 0x1)
> > WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
> > WRITE_ONCE(c, 1);
> >
> > Leaving aside the "&" needed by smp_load_acquire(), if "whichever" is
> > "READ_ONCE", then the load from p->b and the WRITE_ONCE() to "b" are
> > ordered after the load from gp (the former due to an address dependency
> > and the latter due to a (fragile) control dependency). The compiler
> > is within its rights to reorder the store to "a" to precede the load
> > from gp. The compiler is forbidden from reordering the store to "c"
> > wtih the load from gp (because both are volatile accesses), but the CPU
> > is completely within its rights to do this reordering.
> >
> > But if "whichever" is "smp_load_acquire()", all four of the subsequent
> > memory accesses are ordered after the load from gp.
> >
> > Similarly, for WRITE_ONCE() and smp_store_release():
> >
> > p = READ_ONCE(gp);
> > r1 = READ_ONCE(gi);
> > r2 = READ_ONCE(gj);
> > a = 1;
> > WRITE_ONCE(b, 1);
> > if (r1 & 0x1)
> > whichever(p->q, r2);
> >
> > Again leaving aside the "&" needed by smp_store_release(), if "whichever"
> > is WRITE_ONCE(), then the load from gp, the load from gi, and the load
> > from gj are all ordered before the store to p->q (by address dependency,
> > control dependency, and data dependency, respectively). The store to "a"
> > can be reordered with the store to p->q by the compiler. The store to
> > "b" cannot be reordered with the store to p->q by the compiler (again,
> > both are volatile), but the CPU is free to reorder them, especially when
> > whichever() is implemented as a conditional store.
> >
> > But if "whichever" is "smp_store_release()", all five of the earlier
> > memory accesses are ordered before the store to p->q.
> >
> > Does that help, or am I missing the point of your question?
>
> My main question is how permissible/ugly you think the following use
> of READ_ONCE() would be, and whether you think it ought to be an
> smp_load_acquire() instead.
>
> Assume that we are holding some kind of lock that ensures that the
> only possible concurrent update to "vma->anon_vma" is that it changes
> from a NULL pointer to a non-NULL pointer (using smp_store_release()).
>
>
> if (READ_ONCE(vma->anon_vma) != NULL) {
> // we now know that vma->anon_vma cannot change anymore
>
> // access the same memory location again with a plain load
> struct anon_vma *a = vma->anon_vma;
>
> // this needs to be address-dependency-ordered against one of
> // the loads from vma->anon_vma
> struct anon_vma *root = a->root;
> }
>
>
> Is this fine? If it is not fine just because the compiler might
> reorder the plain load of vma->anon_vma before the READ_ONCE() load,
> would it be fine after adding a barrier() directly after the
> READ_ONCE()?
I'm _very_ wary of mixing READ_ONCE() and plain loads to the same variable,
as I've run into cases where you have sequences such as:
// Assume *ptr is initially 0 and somebody else writes it to 1
// concurrently
foo = *ptr;
bar = READ_ONCE(*ptr);
baz = *ptr;
and you can get foo == baz == 0 but bar == 1 because the compiler only
ends up reading from memory twice.
That was the root cause behind f069faba6887 ("arm64: mm: Use READ_ONCE
when dereferencing pointer to pte table"), which was very unpleasant to
debug.
Will
