linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] x86: Add NMI types for kmap

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:28:12 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com, efault@....de, npiggin@...e.de,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] x86: Add NMI types for kmap_atomic


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 10:13 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > By removing the types it becomes very difficult to verify the max 
> > > depth. I really don't like removing them.
> > 
> > The fact that it implies an atomic section pretty much limits its 
> > depth in practice, doesnt it?
> > 
> > All we need to track in the debug code is 
> > max-{syscall,softirq,hardirq,nmi}. The sum of these 4 counts 
> > must be smaller than the max - even if (as you are right to 
> > point out) we dont hit that magic combo that truly maximizes the 
> > depth.
> 
> Right, so the thing I'd worry about is someone adding 
> kmap_atomic() to an interrupt context that didn't have interrupts 
> disabled and then managing to nest that a few times.
> 
> Suppose you put it in some IO completion handler, and someone has 
> 4 IO controllers installed and all 4 IO interrupts come in at the 
> 'same' time.
> 
> With types you could warn on similarly to what we do today, but 
> with the simple push/pop that might be a lot harder.

Yes, fixed-purpose allocations are easier to warn about - they imply 
more constraints, no doubt about that.

But we could warn about using kmap-atomic with in irq context with 
irqs enabled and thus exclude the case you are worried about?

> Anyway, with the whole cr2 fiddling bit being discussed this seems 
> to become redundant.

It's not just the cr2 fiddling but also conversion of pagefault 
returns from IRET to RET. The kmap_atomic API change is a nice 
cleanup in itself.

	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/