linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] enable interrupts in user path of page fault.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:06:46 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] enable interrupts in user path of page fault.

On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 18:58 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:34:04 -0400

> Interrupts got disabled here because do_page_fault() is an
> interrupt-disabling trap, yes?

Correct.

> 
> The patch looks reasonable to me: a slight reduction in interrupt-off
> latency when really weird things are happening.
> 
> The patch also breaks things, I think: if userspace is running with
> interrupts disabled and tries to access kernel memory it will presently
> whizz through the kernel without ever enabling interrupts.  With this
> change, the kernel will now enable interrupts, which is presumably not what
> the application wanted.

I didn't realize that userspace was allowed to run with interrupts
disabled. If this becomes a problem, we can add the same check that's
above where do_page_fault does enable interrupts, but is skipped because
the faulting address was above PAGE_OFFSET.


ie. (i386)
        if (regs->eflags & (X86_EFLAGS_IF|VM_MASK))
                local_irq_enable();


> 
> However it's surely already the case that most pagefaults will go and
> enable interrupts on this process anyway, so no big loss there.  I'd expect
> the kernel to spit piles of might_sleep() warnings when all this happens, so
> maybe it just doesn't happen for some reason.

Actually it does on the RT kernel. Hence why I found it ;-)

-- Steve


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/