linux-kernel - Re: Is stopmachine() preempt safe?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1156756878.10467.94.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:21:18 +1000
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Keith Owens <kaos@....com.au>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Is stopmachine() preempt safe?

On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 16:36 +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> There is a lot of code in the kernel that runs cpu_online_map without
> taking any locks and without disabling preemption.  Obviously we do not
> want all that code to lock or disable preemption, it will kill
> scalability.

There is actually not much code which should use cpu_online_map.  Code
which does must be careful: you generally need to think about handling
cpu hotplug notifiers as well as the map changing underneath you.

Doing a brief audit, ignoring the already-acknowledged cpufreq code and
arch-specifics, I can see these cases which seem suspicious:

./drivers/acpi/processor_core.c:acpi_processor_handle_eject()
        - I assume this is relying on some other mechanism so the cpu
        doesn't get onlined?
        - A couple of other num_online_cpus() there in ACPI might need a
        rethink for hotplug CPU though.

./kernel/irq/proc.c:  irq_affinity_write_proc()
        - seems complicated, but I think migration.c handles when cpus
        gone offline?

./drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c:
        - needs to handle hotplug cpus (or just say don't do that?)

./drivers/infiniband/hw/ipath/ipath_file_ops.c:
        - seems to be using num_online_cpus as a really poor heuristic,
        and incorrectly (for i = 0; i < num_online_cpus(); i++) <-- i is
        not a valid CPU number!).

./kernel/power/main.c:suspend_prepare()
        - suspicious, code here, too.
        
./net/core/dev.c: net_dma_rebalance()
        - This is a heuristic, which may be OK.
./net/core/dev.c: softnet_get_online()
        - It'd be nice if net/dev/core.c used cpu_possible() not
        cpu_online() to report stats, so they don't get lost from
        offlined CPUs.

./net/core/pktgen.c: pg_init()
        - Assumes no CPU plugging, but is a pretty specialized driver.
        
(Other uses get away with being in initcalls, or on platforms without
hotplug CPU).

Disappointingly, none of these would be fixed by changing the semantics
of stop_machine; they rely on the online cpus and must take action when
they change, whether they are reading the online_cpu_map at the time or
not.

Rusty.
-- 
Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law

-
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/