linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/mm/pat: Disable preemption around __flush_tlb

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:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 17:55:31 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Sebastian Andrzej Siewior' <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/mm/pat: Disable preemption around
 __flush_tlb_all()

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:17:18PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:54:38AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > > >  	 * We should perform an IPI and flush all tlbs,
> > > > >  	 * but that can deadlock->flush only current cpu:
> > > > >  	 */
> > > > > +	preempt_disable();
> > > > >  	__flush_tlb_all();
> > > > > +	preempt_enable();
> > > > 
> > > > Can it make any sense to flush the tlb with preemption enabled?
> > > > Surely preemption must be disabled over something else as well?
> > > 
> > > This code is fishy anyway, for only doing that local invalidate.
> > > 
> > > Ideally we'd never ever merge anything that only does local invalidates,
> > > on a global address space, that's just broken.
> > 
> > A little bit late to lament about that.
> 
> For this, yes :/ But for future stuff we should really not allow such
> things anymore.
> 
> > So should we just replace it with cpa_flush_all() ?
> 
> The comment there suggests that will deadlock, supposedly because the
> kernel_map_page() call can happen with IRQs disabled or such.
> 
> I've not deeply looked at this.

Bah, right. Forgot about that.

Thanks,

	tglx