| 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: <20090303002214.GA4147@elte.hu> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 01:22:14 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com> 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 * Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com> wrote: > > > 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. :-) yeah, but still the API is somewhat unsafe. In any case, you also answered your own question: > >> 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? kprobe_mutex does that. Ingo -- 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