linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/40] CPU hotplug rework

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]

Date:	Fri, 1 Feb 2013 11:51:16 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <rw@...utronix.de>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/40] CPU hotplug rework - episode I

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Just face it. The current hotplug maze has 100+ states which are
> > completely undocumented. They are asymetric vs. startup and
> > teardown. They just exists and work somehow aside of the occasional
> > hard to decode hickup.
> >
> > Do you really want to preserve that state by all means [F*ck no]?
> 
> No., But I also don't want to replace it with "there's now eleven
> documented states, and random people hook into random documented
> states".

That's not the plan.
 
> So for me it's the "expose these states" that I get worried about.. A
> random driver should not necessarily even be able to *see* this, and
> decide to be clever and take advantage of the ordering.
> 
> So I'd hope there would be some visibility restrictions. We currently
> have drivers already being confused by DOWN_PREPARE vs DOWN_FAILED etc
> etc random state transitions, and giving them even more flexibility to
> pick random states sounds like a really bad idea. I'd like to make
> sure that drivers and filesystems etc do not even *see* the states
> that are meant for the scheduler or workqueues, for example).

The only states where drivers, filesystems etc are going to see in the
end is:

    CPUHP_PREP_<datastructures>     // Get datastructures set up / freed.

This is _before_ a cpu comes to life and _after_ it is gone. And that
does not require ordering.

    CPUHP_ENABLE_<stuff_on_CPU>     // Enable/disable facilities 

This is _before_ a cpu becomes visible to the general scheduler and
_after_ it has been removed from it.

Those states do not require ordering at least not at the driver level.

And they are not going to be exposed with a dozen of substates. The
only information at both stages is going to be: setup or teardown.

The enable/disable stuff is not allowed to fail. There is no reason
why a driver could veto a cpu offline operation.

The only thing which can fail is the setup stage in preparation, where
you could fail to allocate memory etc.

> So 11 states (although some of those seem to have lots of substates,
> so there may be many more) is too many to *expose*. It's not
> necessarily too many to "have and document", if you see the
> difference.

I don't want to expose them to the general public. I just want the
(arch) core states documented proper with an explicit ordering
scheme. Drivers and stuff should not even know about ordering
requirements.

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/