linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86/topology: Avoid wasting 128k for package id array

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:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 07:29:56 -0500
From:   Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Piotr Luc <piotr.luc@...el.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        He Chen <he.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] x86/topology: Avoid wasting 128k for package id
 array



On 11/09/2017 07:43 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2017, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> [v5]: Change kmalloc to GFP_ATOMIC to fix "sleeping function" warning on
>> virtual machines.
> 
> What has this to do with virtual machines? The very same issue is on
> physcial hardware because this is called from the early CPU bringup code
> with interrupts and preemption disabled.

There was a Intel test bot report of a failure during boot on virtual systems
with Andi's patch.

> 
>> +	/* Allocate and copy a new array */
>> +	ltp_pkg_map_new = kmalloc(logical_packages * sizeof(u16), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> +	BUG_ON(!ltp_pkg_map_new);
> 
> Having an allocation in that code path is a bad idea. First of all the
> error handling in there is just crap, because the only thing you can do is
> panic. Aside of that atomic allocations should be avoided when we can and
> we can.
> 
> Sorry I missed that when looking at the patch earlier. Something along this
> makes it work proper:
> 
> struct pkg_map {
> 	unsigned int	size;
> 	unsigned int	used;
> 	unsigned int	map[0];
> };
> 
> static struct pkg_map *logical_to_physical_pkg_map __read_mostly;
> 
> static int resize_pkg_map(void)
> {
> 	struct pkg_map *newmap, *oldmap = logical_to_physical_pkg_map;
> 	int size;
> 
> 	if (oldmap->size > oldmap->used)
> 		return 0;
> 
> 	size = sizeof(*oldmap) + sizeof(unsigned int) * oldmap->size;
> 	newmap = kzalloc(size + sizeof(unsigned int));
> 	if (!newmap)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> 	memcpy(newmap, oldmap, size);
> 	newmap->size++;
> 	logical_to_physical_pkg_map = newmap;
> 	kfree(oldmap);
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> int __cpu_up(....)
> {
> 	if (resize_pkg_map())
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 	return smp_ops.cpu_up(....);
> }
> 
> static void update_map(....)
> {
> 	if (find_map())
> 		return;
> 	map->map[map->used] = physid;
> 	map->used++;
> }
> 
> static void smp_init_package_map()
> {
> 	struct pkg_map *map;
> 
> 	map = kzalloc(sizeof(*newmap) + sizeof(unsigned int));
> 	map->size = 1;
> }
> 
> See? No BUG_ON() in the early secondary cpu boot code. If memory allocation
> fails the thing goes back gracefully.
> 
> Locking/barriers omitted as you have choices here:
> 
>    1) RCU
> 
>       Needs the proper RCU magic for the lookup and the pointer swap.
> 
>       That requires also a proper barrier between the assignement of the
>       new id and the increment of the used count plus the corresponding one
>       on the read side.
> 
>    2) mutex
> 
>       Must be held when swapping the pointers and across lookup
> 
>       Same barrier requirement as RCU
> 
>    3) raw_spinlock
> 
>       Must be held when swapping the pointers and across lookup
> 
>       No barriers as long as you hold the lock across the assignement and
>       increment.
> 
> All of that works. There is no way to make sure that a lookup is fully
> serialized against a concurrent update. Even if the lookup holds
> cpu_read_lock() the new package might arrive right after the unlock.
> 

Thanks Thomas.

Andi, do you want to take a look at this?

P.

> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
>