linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] powerpc: use task_pid

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:   Tue, 08 May 2018 10:40:21 +1000
From:   "Alastair D'Silva" <alastair@....ibm.com>
To:     Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        mikey@...ling.org, vaibhav@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, malat@...ian.org,
        felix@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pombredanne@...b.com,
        sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@...il.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
        andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com, fbarrat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        corbet@....net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] powerpc: use task_pid_nr() for TID allocation

On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 19:37 +0200, Frederic Barrat wrote:
> 
> Le 18/04/2018 à 03:08, Alastair D'Silva a écrit :
> > From: Alastair D'Silva <alastair@...ilva.org>
> > 
> > The current implementation of TID allocation, using a global IDR,
> > may
> > result in an errant process starving the system of available TIDs.
> > Instead, use task_pid_nr(), as mentioned by the original author.
> > The
> > scenario described which prevented it's use is not applicable, as
> > set_thread_tidr can only be called after the task struct has been
> > populated.
> 
> 
> Here is how I understand what's going to happen if 2 threads are
> using 
> the same TIDR value, which is possible with this patch (if unlikely):
> 
> 1. waking up the wrong thread is not really a problem, as threads
> have 
> to handle spurious wake up from the 'wait' instruction anyway, and
> must 
> be using some other condition to know when to loop around the 'wait' 
> instruction.
> 
> 2. missing the right thread: if the wrong thread is on a CPU, and a 
> wake_host_thread/as_notify is sent, the core will see a matching
> thread 
> and will accept the command. The (open)capi adapter won't send an 
> interrupt. The wrong thread is awaken, which is not a problem as 
> discussed above. As the right thread to notify is not running, no
> harm 
> is done either: as soon as the thread runs, it's supposed to check
> its 
> condition (which will be met) or call 'wait', but 'wait' immediately 
> returns when called the first time after a thread is scheduled.
> 
> So I believe we are ok. But I think it requires a huge comment with
> the 
> above (at the minimum) :-)
> 
> With a comment:
> Reviewed-by: Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
>    Fred
> 

Good point, I'll add this in the next revision.


-- 
Alastair D'Silva
Open Source Developer
Linux Technology Centre, IBM Australiamob: 0423 762 819