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;
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 14:05:31 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: restore smp_rmb() in __ptrace_may_access()
Message-ID: <20190530120531.GE22536@redhat.com>
References: <20190529113157.227380-1-jannh@google.com>
 <20190529162120.GB27659@redhat.com>
 <CAG48ez3S1c_cd8RNSb9TrF66d+1AMAxD4zh-kixQ6uSEnmS-tg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez3S1c_cd8RNSb9TrF66d+1AMAxD4zh-kixQ6uSEnmS-tg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/29, Jann Horn wrote:
>
> > (I am wondering if smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() could be used instead, just to
> >  make this code look more confusing)
>
> Uuh, I had no idea that that barrier type exists. The helper isn't
> even explicitly mentioned in Documentation/memory-barriers.rst. I
> don't really want to use dark magic in the middle of ptrace access
> logic...

Yes. and if it was not clear I didn't try to seriously suggest to use this
barrier. I was just curious if it can be used or not in this particular case.

> Anyway, looking at it, I think smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() doesn't
> make sense here;

Well I still _think_ it should work, it provides the LOAD-LOAD ordering
and this is what we need.

But I can be easily wrong, and again, I wasn't serious.

Oleg.