linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Avoid PIT SMP lockups

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]

Message-ID: <453414F0.8020502@vmware.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:25:36 -0700
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	caglar@...dus.org.tr, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Avoid PIT SMP lockups

Andi Kleen wrote:
>> It might only happen with SMP because the difficulty of getting good 
>> enough TSC / timer IRQ synchronization during boot increases 
>> exponentially with SMP configurations. And it might pass 10% of the time 
>> because you were lucky enough not to fire off another timer interrupt yet.
>>     
>
> We have the same problem with NMI watchdog events unfortunately. 
> Need to call something in the nmi watchdog code to make sure it is 
> not renewed and then reenabled.
> Or maybe it's better to figure out a way that yields atomic patches.
>   

> I think the best way is to make sure all alternative() patches
> are always done before the code can be ever executed - this
> means doing it very early for the main kernel. The only exception
> would be the LOCK prefix patching, which should be atomic

Yes, this solves the problem in most cases.  Lock patching is fine no 
matter when you do it.  I think the problem with alternative patching in 
check_bugs() is that it happens way too late; the patching really has 
nothing at all to do with check_bugs(), and should be a separate step, 
probably part of setup_arch.

The paravirt-ops stuff also has some patching code.  Fortunately, there, 
we can probably skirt the NMI issue by simply disallowing NMIs, but the 
issue pops up again in stop_machine_run - what happens if you take NMIs 
during stop_machine_run?  Debug traps?  Module unload is fine, but code 
patching done using stop_machine_run is not safe.

Zach
-
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/