linux-kernel - Re: x86: unify genapic code, unify subarchitectures, remove old subarchitecture code

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]

Date:	Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:48:42 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
CC:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, hpa <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: x86: unify genapic code, unify subarchitectures, remove	old	subarchitecture
 code

James Bottomley wrote:
> Agree this is a nasty problem.   However, I can't see any reason why
> smp_call_function_many() needs to allocate in the wait case ... and the
> tlb flushing code would be using the wait case.  What about this fix to
> the generic SMP code (cc'd Jens) that would allow us to take on stack
> data and the fast path all the time?
>   

That's how it used to be, but there's a subtle race.  When using 
allocated list elements, the lifetime of the allocated blocks is managed 
via rcu.  When an element is deleted with list_del_rcu(), another cpu 
can still be using its ->next pointer, and so the memory for that list 
entry can't be freed early.  If it is stack-allocated, then the memory 
will get re-allocated when the calling function returns, which will 
trash the ->next pointer that another cpu is still relying on.

> By the way, I can see us building up stack runoff danger for the large
> CPU machines, so the on stack piece could be limited to a maximal CPU
> cap beyond which it has to kmalloc ... the large CPU machines would
> still probably pick up scaling benefits in that case ... thoughts?
>   

It looks like Peter Z just posted some patches to remove kmalloc from 
this path ("generic smp helpers vs kmalloc").  Ah, he's addressed the 
point above:

    Also, since we cannot simply remove an item from the global queue
    (another
    cpu might be observing it), a quiesence of sorts needs to be
    observed. The
    current code uses regular RCU for that purpose.

    However, since we'll be wanting to quickly reuse an item, we need
    something
    with a much faster turn-around. We do this by simply observing the
    global
    queue quiesence. Since there are a limited number of elements, it
    will auto
    force a quiecent state if we wait for it.

(Haven't read the patches in detail yet.)

> Yes ... will do.  If we can't make the unified non-IPI version work fast
> enough, then both of us can share the call function version.
>   

Xen does cross-cpu tlb flush via hypercall, because Xen knows which real 
CPUs (if any) have stale  vcpu tlb state (there's no point scheduling a 
non-running vcpu just to flush its tlb).

    J


> -	data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data) + cpumask_size(), GFP_ATOMIC);
> +	if (wait)
> +		data = &stack_data.d;
> +	else
> +		data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data) + cpumask_size(), GFP_ATOMIC);
>   
You're still leaving CSD_FLAG_ALLOC set?

>  	if (unlikely(!data)) {
>  		/* Slow path. */
>  		for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>
>   

--
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/