linux-kernel - calling smp_call_function_many() with non-stable CPU mask

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 01 Feb 2011 08:27:58 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	"Michael Galbraith" <MGalbraith@...ell.com>
Subject: calling smp_call_function_many() with non-stable CPU mask

There are a couple of examples of smp_call_function_many() getting
called with mm_cpumask() as the first argument. Since that mask
generally can change while smp_call_function_many() is executing,
it seems there might be a problem with the case where that mask
becomes empty after the initial checks, but before the mask is made
permanent (by copying into data->cpumask).

Shouldn't there be a check of data->refs being zero right after
setting it (to avoid having csd_lock_wait() wait for a remote CPU
to clear the lock flag, and to avoid adding the entry to
call_function.queue)?

If that isn't considered necessary, is it then incorrect to pass
in-flight CPU masks to smp_call_function_many() (and should
this requirement then be documented somewhere, and the
existing calls all be inspected for correctness)?

Thanks, Jan

--
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/