linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] synchronize

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:48:06 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] synchronize_irq needs a barrier

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:20:25PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> That's why I think this patch is in fact the only one that
> solves all the races in this thread.  The case that it solves
> which the lock/unlock patch does not is the one where action
> flows downwards past the clearing of IRQ_INPROGRESS.  I missed
> this case earlier.

OK, here is the patch again with a changelog:

[IRQ]: Fix synchronize_irq races with IRQ handler

As it is some callers of synchronize_irq rely on memory barriers
to provide synchronisation against the IRQ handlers.  For example,
the tg3 driver does

	tp->irq_sync = 1;
	smp_mb();
	synchronize_irq();

and then in the IRQ handler:

	if (!tp->irq_sync)
		netif_rx_schedule(dev, &tp->napi);

Unfortunately memory barriers only work well when they come in
pairs.  Because we don't actually have memory barriers on the
IRQ path, the memory barrier before the synchronize_irq() doesn't
actually protect us.

In particular, synchronize_irq() may return followed by the
result of netif_rx_schedule being made visible.

This patch (mostly written by Linus) fixes this by using spin
locks instead of memory barries on the synchronize_irq() path.

Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>

Thanks,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
index 80eab7a..1f31422 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
@@ -29,12 +29,28 @@
 void synchronize_irq(unsigned int irq)
 {
 	struct irq_desc *desc = irq_desc + irq;
+	unsigned int status;
 
 	if (irq >= NR_IRQS)
 		return;
 
-	while (desc->status & IRQ_INPROGRESS)
-		cpu_relax();
+	do {
+		unsigned long flags;
+
+		/*
+		 * Wait until we're out of the critical section.  This might
+		 * give the wrong answer due to the lack of memory barriers.
+		 */
+		while (desc->status & IRQ_INPROGRESS)
+			cpu_relax();
+
+		/* Ok, that indicated we're done: double-check carefully. */
+		spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
+		status = desc->status;
+		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
+
+		/* Oops, that failed? */
+	} while (status & IRQ_INPROGRESS);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(synchronize_irq);
 
-
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/