linux-kernel - Re: Preventing IPI sending races in arch code

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:	Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:27:26 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc:	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
	Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: Preventing IPI sending races in arch code

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 05:00:18PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> While we are at it, I wanted to confirm another potential race (ARC/blackfin..)
> The IPI handler clears the interrupt before atomically-read-n-clear the msg word.
> 
> do_IPI
>    plat_smp_ops.ipi_clear(irq);
>    while ((pending = xchg(&ipi_data->bits, 0) != 0)
>       find_next_bit(....)
>       switch(next-msg)
> 
> Depending on arch this could lead to an immediate IPI interrupt, and again
> ipi_data->bits could get out of syn with IPI senders. 

I'm obviously lacking in platform knowledge here, what does that
ipi_clear() actually do? Tell the platform the interrupt has arrived and
it can stop asserting the line?

So sure, then someone can again assert the interrupt, but given we just
established a protocol for raising the thing; namely something like
this:

void arch_send_ipi(int cpu, int type)
{
  u32 *pending_ptr = per_cpu_ptr(ipi_bits, cpu);
  u32 new, old;

  do {
  	new = old = *pending_ptr;
	new |= 1U << type;
  } while (cmpxchg(pending_ptr, old, new) != old)

  if (!old) /* only raise the actual IPI if we set the first bit */
  	raise_ipi(cpu);
}

Who would re-assert it if we have !0 pending?

Also, the above can be thought of as a memory ordering issue:

  STORE pending
  MB /* implied by cmpxchg */
  STORE ipi /* raise the actual thing */

In that case the other end must be:

  LOAD ipi
  MB /* implied by xchg */
  LOAD pending

Which is what your code seems to do.

> IMO the while loop is
> completely useless specially if IPIs are not coalesced in h/w. 

Agreed, the while loops seems superfluous.

> And we need to move
> the xchg ahead of ACK'ing the IPI
> 
> do_IPI
>    pending = xchg(&ipi_data->bits, 0);
>    plat_smp_ops.ipi_clear(irq);
>    while (ffs....)
>       switch(next-msg)
>       ...
> 
> Does that look sane to you.

This I'm not at all certain of; continuing with the memory order analogy
this would allow for the case where we see 0 pending, set a bit, try and
raise the interrupt but then do not because its already assert.

And since you just removed the while() loop, we'll be left with a !0
pending vector and nobody processing it.
--
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/