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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:34:11 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Ido Yariv <ido@...ery.com> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] genirq: Flush the irq thread on synchronization On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Ido Yariv wrote: > 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? Sorry, went of my radar. Will have a look later today. 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists