From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752030AbaGJRix (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:38:53 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56459 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751191AbaGJRiv (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:38:51 -0400
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:35:52 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>,
        Julien Tinnes <jln@chromium.org>,
        "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/11] seccomp: introduce writer locking
Message-ID: <20140710173552.GA27410@redhat.com>
References: <1403911380-27787-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <1403911380-27787-10-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <20140709184215.GA4866@redhat.com> <20140709185549.GB4866@redhat.com> <CAGXu5jL6q1d16uA1Yu+QO4eV7zWwcWEWgkZrwmsfymbMvEr6+Q@mail.gmail.com> <20140710152418.GB20861@redhat.com> <CAGXu5jKNUn0OcXPyTmqbHwQ_GPMNTeajyrxpd2xAtzjTRFyhpg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jKNUn0OcXPyTmqbHwQ_GPMNTeajyrxpd2xAtzjTRFyhpg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 07/10, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just to simplify. Suppose TIF_SECCOMP was set a long ago. This thread
> > has a single filter F1 and it enters seccomp_run_filters().
> >
> > Right before it does ACCESS_ONCE() to read the pointer, another thread
> > does seccomp_sync_threads() and sets .filter = F2.
> >
> > If ACCESS_ONCE() returns F1 - everything is fine. But it can see the new
> > pointer F2, and in this case we need a barrier to ensure that, say,
> > LOAD(F2->prog) will see all the preceding changes in this memory.
>
> And the rmb() isn't sufficient for that?

But it has no effect if the pointer was changed _after_ rmb() was already
called.

And, you need a barrier _after_ ACCESS_ONCE().

(Unless, again, we know that this is the first filter, but this is only
 by accident).

> Is another barrier needed
> before assigning the filter pointer to make sure the contents it
> points to are flushed?

I think smp_store_release() should be moved from seccomp_attach_filter()
to seccomp_sync_threads(). Although probably it _should_ work either way,
but at least this looks confusing because a) "current" doesn't need a
barrier to serialize wuth itself, and b) it is not clear why it is safe
to change the pointer dereferenced by another thread without a barrier.

> What's the least time-consuming operation I can use in run_filters?

As I said smp_read_barrier_depends() (nop unless alpha) or
smp_load_acquire() which you used in the previous version.

And to remind, afaics smp_load_acquire() in put_filter() should die ;)

Oleg.