linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] ring-buffer: less locking and only disable preemption

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: <20081004222713.GA1813@Krystal>
Date:	Sat, 4 Oct 2008 18:27:13 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ring-buffer: less locking and only disable
	preemption

* Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
> 
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > The dynamic function tracer is another issue. The problem with NMIs 
> > > has nothing to do with locking, or corrupting the buffers. It has to 
> > > do with the dynamic code modification.  Whenever we modify code, we 
> > > must guarantee that it will not be executed on another CPU.
> > > 
> > > Kstop_machine serves this purpose rather well. We can modify code 
> > > without worrying it will be executed on another CPU, except for NMIs. 
> > > The problem now comes where an NMI can come in and execute the code 
> > > being modified. That's why I put in all the notrace, lines. But it 
> > > gets difficult because of nmi_notifier can call all over the kernel.  
> > > Perhaps, we can simply disable the nmi-notifier when we are doing the 
> > > kstop_machine call?
> > 
> > that would definitely be one way to reduce the cross section, but not 
> > enough i'm afraid. For example in the nmi_watchdog=2 case we call into 
> > various lapic functions and paravirt lapic handlers which makes it all 
> > spread to 3-4 paravirtualization flavors ...
> > 
> > sched_clock()'s notrace aspects were pretty manageable, but this in 
> > its current form is not.
> 
> there's a relatively simple method that would solve all these 
> impact-size problems.
> 
> We cannot stop NMIs (and MCEs, etc.), but we can make kernel code 
> modifications atomic, by adding the following thin layer ontop of it:
> 
>    #define MAX_CODE_SIZE 10
> 
>    int redo_len;
>    u8 *redo_vaddr;
> 
>    u8 redo_buffer[MAX_CODE_SIZE];
> 
>    atomic_t __read_mostly redo_pending;
> 
> and use it in do_nmi():
> 
>    if (unlikely(atomic_read(&redo_pending)))
> 	modify_code_redo();
> 
> i.e. when we modify code, we first fill in the redo_buffer[], redo_vaddr 
> and redo_len[], then we set redo_pending flag. Then we modify the kernel 
> code, and clear the redo_pending flag.
> 
> If an NMI (or MCE) handler intervenes, it will notice the pending 
> 'transaction' and will copy redo_buffer[] to the (redo_vaddr,len) 
> location and will continue.
> 
> So as far as non-maskable contexts are concerned, kernel code patching 
> becomes an atomic operation. do_nmi() has to be marked notrace but 
> that's all and easy to maintain.
> 
> Hm?
> 

The comment at the beginning of 
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=blob;f=arch/x86/kernel/immediate.c;h=87a25db0efbd8f73d3d575e48541f2a179915da5;hb=b6148ea934f42e730571f41aa5a1a081a93995b5

explains that code modification on x86 SMP systems is not only a matter
of atomicity, but also a matter of not changing the code underneath a
running CPU which is making assumptions that it won't change underneath
without issuing a synchronizing instruction before the new code is used
by the CPU. The scheme you propose here takes care of atomicity, but
does not take care of the synchronization problem. A sync_core() would
probably be required when such modification is detected.

Also, speaking of plain atomicity, you scheme does not seem to protect
against NMIs running on a different CPU, because the non-atomic change
could race with such NMI.

Mathieu

> 	Ingo
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/