linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] perf/x86: implement cross-HT corruption bug workaround

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, 5 Jun 2014 16:14:25 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Maria Dimakopoulou <maria.n.dimakopoulou@...il.com>
Cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	jolsa@...hat.com, zheng.z.yan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] perf/x86: implement cross-HT corruption bug
 workaround

On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:11:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > x86_schedule_event()
> > >   ->start_scheduling()
> > >     spin_lock()
> > >   ->get_event_constraints()
> > >     intel_get_excl_constraints()
> > >       kmalloc(.gfp=GFP_KERNEL)
> > >
> > > How can that ever work?
> 
> > Are you saying it is illegal to call kmalloc() from
> > this context?
> 
> Nobody will come and arrest you for it, so no. Broken though. GFP_KERNEL
> will attempt to sleep to wait for reclaim, and you're holding a
> spinlock.

Furthermore, even GFP_ATOMIC shouldn't be used because these are/should
be raw_spinlocks and the zone->lock is a regular spinlock.

So please look into the preallocation thing.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped