linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] genirq: Inform handler about line sharing state

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.2.00.1012151534540.12146@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date:	Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:49:27 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
cc:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Tom Lyon <pugs@...co.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] genirq: Inform handler about line sharing state

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Jan Kiszka wrote:

> Am 15.12.2010 14:04, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Am 14.12.2010 21:54, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> @@ -943,6 +950,9 @@ static struct irqaction *__free_irq(unsigned int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>>>  	/* Make sure it's not being used on another CPU: */
> >>>>  	synchronize_irq(irq);
> >>>>  
> >>>> +	if (single_handler)
> >>>> +		desc->irq_data.drv_status &= ~IRQS_SHARED;
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> What's the reason to clear this flag outside of the desc->lock held
> >>> region.
> >>
> >> We need to synchronize the irq first before clearing the flag.
> >>
> >> The problematic scenario behind this: An IRQ started in shared mode,
> >> this the line was unmasked after the hardirq. Now we clear IRQS_SHARED
> >> before calling into the threaded handler. And that handler may now think
> >> that the line is still masked as IRQS_SHARED is set.
> > 
> > That should read "not set" I guess.
> 
> Can't remember who wrote this, but that guy might have been too tired
> for clear sentences: Yes, of course, we could run into troubles, if
> IRQS_SHARED was _not_ set while the IRQ line is unmasked between hard
> and threaded handler.

Right.

As a side note, the current implementation requires that you lookup
irq_data.drv_status for every invocation of the handler or have a
reference to irq_data.drv_status somewhere locally, which I don't like
either.

I have an evil and nasy idea how to avoid that, need to look how ugly
it gets. Worst case we need to go back to that notification thing
which I wanted really avoid in the first place.
 
Though I like the register_mutex idea which came out of this a lot as
it allows us to reduce desc->lock held and interrupt disabled regions
quite nicely.

/me goes back to stare at the code

> > Hmm, needs more thoughts :(
> 
> Be warned, might be painful.

Bah, my brain became pain resistant when I started hacking that code.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/