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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 21:42:21 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> To: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com> Cc: "Jan Glauber" <jan.glauber@...ibm.com>, "Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...l.org, mingo@...e.hu, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Alan Cox" <alan@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [patch] i386/x86_64: smp_call_function locking inconsistency On Thursday 07 June 2007 16:07:04 Satyam Sharma wrote: > Hi, > > I'm about six months late here(!), but I noticed this bug in > arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c while preparing another related > patch today and then found this thread during Googling ... > > On 2/9/07, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote: > > On i386/x86_64 smp_call_function_single() takes call_lock with > > spin_lock_bh(). To me this would imply that it is legal to call > > smp_call_function_single() from softirq context. > > It's not since smp_call_function() takes call_lock with just > > spin_lock(). We can easily deadlock: > > > > -> [process context] > > -> smp_call_function() > > -> spin_lock(&call_lock) > > -> IRQ -> do_softirq -> tasklet > > -> [softirq context] > > -> smp_call_function_single() > > -> spin_lock_bh(&call_lock) > > -> dead > > You're absolutely right, and this bug still exists in the latest -git. bug is definitely too strong a word. It might be unnecessary to disable bhs, but I don't see any bug in here as long as you can't show a case where the smp_call_function() is called from BHs. There was a patch floating around to use it from sysrq to display state of all CPUs (and sysrq is softirq), but I don't think that ever made it mainline. And smp_call_function() can be called from panic which can violate quite some assumptions, but some deadlock possibility there is ok. I also don't like making it soft/hard irq save because that would make it much more intrusive to the machine for no good reason (e.g. slab can call it quite often in some cases) The _bh should be probably just removed and possibly a WARN_ON added. -Andi - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists