linux-kernel - Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004020748540.3634@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 2 Apr 2010 07:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early



On Fri, 2 Apr 2010, David Howells wrote:

> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > Ahh, yes. In this case, that doesn't likely change anything. The 
> > save/restore versions of the irq-safe locks shouldn't be appreciably more 
> > expensive than the non-saving ones. And architectures that really care 
> > should have done their own per-arch optimized version anyway.
> 
> That depends on the CPU.  Some CPUs have quite expensive interrupt disablement
> instructions.  FRV does for instance; but fortunately, on the FRV, I can use
> some of the excessive quantities of conditional registers to pretend that I
> disable interrupts, and only actually do so if an interrupt actually happens.

I think you're missing the part where we're not _adding_ any irq disables: 
we're just changing the unconditional irq disable to a save-and-disable 
(and the unconditional irq enable to a restore).

So even if irq's are expensive to disable, the change from

	spin_lock_irq()

to

	spin_lock_irqsave()

won't make that code any more expensive.

> > Maybe we should even document that - so that nobody else makes the mistake 
> > x86-64 did of thinking that the "generic spinlock" version of the rwsem's 
> > is anything but a hacky and bad fallback case.
> 
> In some cases, it's actually the best way.  On a UP machine, for instance,
> where they reduce to nothing or where your only atomic instruction is an XCHG
> equivalent.

Again, you seem to think that we used to have just a plain spin_lock. Not 
so. We currently have a spin_lock_irq(), and it is NOT a no-op even on UP. 
It does that irq disable.

Anyway, I suspect that even with just an atomic xchg, you can do a better 
job at doing down_read() than using the generic spin-lock version (likely 
by busy-looping on a special "we're busy" value). But if you do want to 
use the generic spin-lock version, I doubt any architecture makes that 
irqsave version noticeable slower than the unconditional irq version.

		Linus
--
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/