| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <49AC7453.8020307@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:05:39 -0500 From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> CC: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: make text_poke() atomic Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com> wrote: > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>>> So perhaps another approach to (re-)consider would be to go back >>>>> to atomic fixmaps here. It spends 3 slots but that's no big >>>>> deal. >>>> Oh, it's a good idea! fixmaps must make it simpler. >>>> >>>>> In exchange it will be conceptually simpler, and will also scale >>>>> much better than a global spinlock. What do you think? >>>> I think even if I use fixmaps, we have to use a spinlock to protect >>>> the fixmap area from other threads... >>> that's why i suggested to use an atomic-kmap, not a fixmap. >> Even if the mapping is atomic, text_poke() has to protect pte >> from other text_poke()s while changing code. >> AFAIK, atomic-kmap itself doesn't ensure that, does it? > > Well, but text_poke() is not a serializing API to begin with. > It's normally used in code patching sequences when we 'know' > that there cannot be similar parallel activities. The kprobes > usage of text_poke() looks unsafe - and that needs to be fixed. Oh, kprobes already prohibited parallel arming/disarming by using kprobe_mutex. :-) > So indeed a new global lock is needed there. > > It's fixable and we'll fixit, but text_poke() is really more > complex than i'd like it to be. > > stop_machine_run() is essentially instantaneous in practice and > obviously serializing so it warrants a second look at least. > Have you tried to use it in kprobes? No, but it seems that cost high for incremental use(registration) of kprobes... Thank you, > > Ingo -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com -- 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