Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190528163258.260144-1-elver@google.com> <20190528163258.260144-3-elver@google.com>
 <20190528165036.GC28492@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <CACT4Y+bV0CczjRWgHQq3kvioLaaKgN+hnYEKCe5wkbdngrm+8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANpmjNNtjS3fUoQ_9FQqANYS2wuJZeFRNLZUq-ku=v62GEGTig@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190529100116.GM2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CANpmjNMvwAny54udYCHfBw1+aphrQmiiTJxqDq7q=h+6fvpO4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190529103010.GP2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CACT4Y+aVB3jK_M0-2D_QTq=nncVXTsNp77kjSwBwjqn-3hAJmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <377465ba-3b31-31e7-0f9d-e0a5ab911ca4@virtuozzo.com>
In-Reply-To: <377465ba-3b31-31e7-0f9d-e0a5ab911ca4@virtuozzo.com>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 May 2019 13:29:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ZDmqqM6YW72Q-=kAurta5ctscLT5p=nQJ5y=82yVMq=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] asm-generic, x86: Add bitops instrumentation for KASAN
To:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 1:23 PM Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> On 5/29/19 1:57 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:30 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:16:31PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 12:01, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 11:20:17AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> >>>>> For the default, we decided to err on the conservative side for now,
> >>>>> since it seems that e.g. x86 operates only on the byte the bit is on.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not correct, see for instance set_bit():
> >>>>
> >>>> static __always_inline void
> >>>> set_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> >>>> {
> >>>>         if (IS_IMMEDIATE(nr)) {
> >>>>                 asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "orb %1,%0"
> >>>>                         : CONST_MASK_ADDR(nr, addr)
> >>>>                         : "iq" ((u8)CONST_MASK(nr))
> >>>>                         : "memory");
> >>>>         } else {
> >>>>                 asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX __ASM_SIZE(bts) " %1,%0"
> >>>>                         : : RLONG_ADDR(addr), "Ir" (nr) : "memory");
> >>>>         }
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> That results in:
> >>>>
> >>>>         LOCK BTSQ nr, (addr)
> >>>>
> >>>> when @nr is not an immediate.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the clarification. Given that arm64 already instruments
> >>> bitops access to whole words, and x86 may also do so for some bitops,
> >>> it seems fine to instrument word-sized accesses by default. Is that
> >>> reasonable?
> >>
> >> Eminently -- the API is defined such; for bonus points KASAN should also
> >> do alignment checks on atomic ops. Future hardware will #AC on unaligned
> >> [*] LOCK prefix instructions.
> >>
> >> (*) not entirely accurate, it will only trap when crossing a line.
> >>     https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1556134382-58814-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com
> >
> > Interesting. Does an address passed to bitops also should be aligned,
> > or alignment is supposed to be handled by bitops themselves?
> >
>
> It should be aligned. This even documented in Documentation/core-api/atomic_ops.rst:
>
>         Native atomic bit operations are defined to operate on objects aligned
>         to the size of an "unsigned long" C data type, and are least of that
>         size.  The endianness of the bits within each "unsigned long" are the
>         native endianness of the cpu.
>
>
> > This probably should be done as a separate config as not related to
> > KASAN per se. But obviously via the same
> > {atomicops,bitops}-instrumented.h hooks which will make it
> > significantly easier.
> >
>
> Agreed.

Thanks. I've filed https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203751
for checking alignment with all the points and references, so that
it's not lost.