linux-kernel - Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all

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: <4BB47FC3.1020606@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:13:07 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	aarcange@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks()

On 04/01/2010 02:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>>> mmu_take_all_locks() takes a spinlock for each vma, which means we increase
>>> the preempt count by the number of vmas in an address space.  Since the user
>>> controls the number of vmas, they can cause preempt_count to overflow.
>>>
>>> Fix by making mmu_take_all_locks() only disable preemption once by making
>>> the spinlocks preempt-neutral.
>>>        
>> Right, so while this will get rid of the warning it doesn't make the
>> code any nicer, its still a massive !preempt latency spot.
>>      
> I'm not sure whether this is a real well done April 1st joke or if there
> is someone trying to secure the "bad taste patch of the month" price.
>    

I don't think a spin_lock_nested_while_preempt_disabled() is worthwhile 
for this.

> Anyway, I don't see a reason why we can't convert those locks to
> mutexes and get rid of the whole preempt disabled region.
>    

If someone is willing to audit all code paths to make sure these locks 
are always taken in schedulable context I agree that's a better fix.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/