linux-kernel - Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix

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.DEB.2.02.1309201244080.4089@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:03:17 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@....ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
	Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT PULL] softirq: Consolidation and stack overrun fix

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > It fixes stacks overruns reported by Benjamin Herrenschmidt:
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1378330796.4321.50.camel%40pasglop
> 
> So I don't really dislike this patch-series, but isn't "irq_exit()"
> (which calls the new softirq_on_stack()) already running in the
> context of the irq stack? And it's run at the very end of the irq
> processing, so the irq stack should be empty too at that point.

Right, but most of the implementations are braindamaged.

      irq_enter();
      handle_irq_on_hardirq_stack();
      irq_exit();

instead of doing:
	
      switch_stack()
      irq_enter()
      handle_irq()
      irq_exit()
      restore_stack()

So in the case of softirq processing (the likely case) we end up doing:

   switch_to_hardirq_stack()
   ...
   restore_original_stack()
   switch_to_softirq_stack()
   ...
   restore_original_stack()

Two avoidable stack switch operations for no gain.

> I'm assuming that the problem is that since we're already on the irq
> stack, if *another* irq comes in, now that *other* irq doesn't get yet
> another irq stack page. And I'm wondering whether we shouldn't just
> fix that (hopefully unlikely) case instead? So instead of having a
> softirq stack, we'd have just an extra irq stack for the case where
> the original irq stack is already in use.

Why not have a single irq_stack large enough to accomodate interrupt
handling during softirq processing? We have no interrupt nesting so
the maximum stack depth necessary is

  max(softirq_stack_usage) + max(irq_stack_usage)

Today we allocate THREAD_SIZE_ORDER for the hard and the soft context,
so allocating 2 * THREAD_SIZE_ORDER should be sufficient.

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/