linux-kernel - Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable

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: <46007A3A.2010101@goop.org>
Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:20:10 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
	chrisw@...s-sol.org, anthony@...emonkey.ws, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops
 callsites to make them patchable

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 09:31:58AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>   
>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> If that is the case.  In the normal kernel what would
>>>> the "the oops, we got an interrupt code do?"
>>>> I assume it would leave interrupts disabled when it returns?
>>>> Like we currently do with the delayed disable of normal interrupts?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Yeah, disable interrupts, and set a flag that the fake "sti" can test, and 
>>> just return without doing anything.
>>>
>>> (You may or may not also need to do extra work to Ack the hardware 
>>> interrupt etc, which may be irq-controller specific. Once the CPU has 
>>> accepted the interrupt, you may not be able to just leave it dangling)
>>>   
>>>       
>> So it would be something like:
>>
>>     pda.intr_mask = 1;		/* disable interrupts */
>>     ...
>>     pda.intr_mask = 0;		/* enable interrupts */
>>     if (xchg(&pda.intr_pending, 0))	/* check pending */
>>     	asm("sti");		/* was pending; isr left cpu interrupts masked */
>>     
>
> I don't know that you need an xchg there. If you're still on the same
> CPU, it should all be nice and causal even across an interrupt handler.
> So it could be:
>
>    pda.intr_mask = 0; /* intr_pending can't get set after this */
>    if (unlikely(pda.intr_pending)) {
>       pda.intr_pending = 0;
>       asm("sti");
>    }
>
> (This would actually need a C barrier, but I'll ignore that as this'd
> end up being asm...)
>
> But other interesting things could happen. If we never did a real CLI
> and we get preempted and switched to another CPU between clearing
> intr_mask and checking intr_pending, we get a little confused. 
>   

Could prevent preempt if pda.intr_mask is set.  preemptible() is defined as:

    # define preemptible()    (preempt_count() == 0 && !irqs_disabled())

anyway, so that would be changed to look at the intr_mask rather than
eflags.
(I'm not sure if preemptible() is actually used to determine whether
preempt or not).

Alternatively, the intr_mask could be encoded in a bit of preempt_count...

    J
-
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/