linux-kernel - Re: Bug in on_each

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: <200703020446.l224kldo001976@pasta.boston.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:46:47 -0500
From:	Ernie Petrides <petrides@...hat.com>
To:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Daniel Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in on_each_cpu?

On Thursday, 1-Mar-2007 at 7:22 PST, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:47:39 -0800 Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com> wrote:
> 
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 03:34 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> > >   
> > >> What would be really, really nice would be to statically check all 
> > >> callsites that issue irq disables actually keep irqs disabled.  
> > >> Presumably, there was a reason they disabled irqs, and re-enabling them 
> > >> underneath their noses, even if it is to avoid a race, breaks the logic 
> > >> behind that reason.
> > >>     
> > >
> > > For the moment, how about a BUG_ON() in on_each_cpu()?
> > >   
> > 
> > Sounds quite decent.  But why does on_each_cpu need to disable 
> > interrupts at all?  It just calls func(), then re-enables interrupts.  
> > So whatever was going to happen during func() that might not be 
> > interrupt safe could just be done in the callee, avoiding the rather 
> > expensive mess of disabling and re-enabling interrupts for those cases 
> > where it doesn't matter.
> 
> The handler for smp_call_function() is called with local interrupts
> disabled (from the IPI handler).
> 
> So to provide a consistent call environment for that handler, on_each_cpu()
> will also disable local interrupts when making the direct call on this CPU.

And further, this "consistent call environment" is *required* for correct
operation of certain callers, e.g. invalidate_bh_lrus(), whose callback
function is invalidate_bh_lru().  If invalidate_bh_lru() is called without
IRQs blocked, it might be interrupted by an IPI that causes nested execution
of that same function on behalf of another cpu's call to on_each_cpu(), and
this can lead to duplicate brelse() calls on a buf head (and ultimately to
ext3 journaling crashes due to invalid concurrent use of that buf head).

Cheers.  -ernie
-
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/