linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] genirq: Flush the irq thread on synchronization

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120213094329.GA29428@WorkStation>
Date:	Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:43:29 +0200
From:	Ido Yariv <ido@...ery.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] genirq: Flush the irq thread on synchronization

Hi Thomas,

On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 09:09:32PM +0200, Ido Yariv wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 12:21:46AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I can see your problem, but this might lead to threads_active leaks
> > under certain conditions. desc->threads_active was only meant to deal
> > with shared interrupts.
> > 
> > We explicitely allow a design where the primary handler can leave the
> > device interrupt enabled and allow further interrupts to occur while
> > the handler is running. We only have a single bit to note that the
> > thread should run, but your wakeup would up the threads_active count
> > in that scenario several times w/o a counterpart which decrements it.
> > 
> > The solution for this is to keep the current threads_active semantics
> > and make the wait function different. Instead of waiting for
> > threads_active to become 0 it should wait for threads_active == 0 and
> > the IRQTF_RUNTHREAD for all actions to be cleared. To avoid looping
> > over the actions, we can take a similar approach as we take with the
> > desc->threads_oneshot bitfield.
> 
> Thanks for reviewing this.
> 
> I might be missing something, but I don't see any potential
> threads_active leaks in this approach. We wont increase threads_active
> if IRQTF_RUNTHREAD was already set beforehand (as test_and_set_bit()
> will return 1).
> 
> If irq_wake_thread is called multiple times before irq_thread has had a
> chance to run, threads_active will only be increased once and decreased
> back when IRQTF_RUNTHREAD is cleared.
> 
> Am I missing something? If not, do you see any other issues with this
> implementation?

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Ido.
--
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/