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: <20130921232650.GA11972@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sat, 21 Sep 2013 18:27:02 -0500
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 07:45:01AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 13:58 -0500, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > Now certainly what needs to be fixed then is archs that don't have
> > __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED
> > or archs that have any other significant opportunity to nest interrupt.
> 
> Interesting. I notice we don't define it on powerpc

Yeah, x86 doesn't define it either. In fact few archs do.

> but we don't enable
> IRQs in do_IRQ either... our path is very similar to x86 in this regard,
> the only thing that can cause them to become enabled would be if a
> driver interrupt handler did local_irq_enable().
> 
> It used to be fairly common for drivers to do spin_unlock_irq() which
> would unconditionally re-enable. Did we add WARNs or lockdep logic to
> catch these nowadays ?

Right there is a check in handle_irq_event_percpu() that warns if the handler
exits with irqs enabled.

And irq_exit() also warns when (__ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED && !irq_disabled())

> 
> > >  - process context doing local_bh_enable, and a bh became pending
> > > while it was disabled. See above: this needs a stack switch. Which
> > > stack to use is open, again assuming that a hardirq coming in will
> > > switch to yet another stack.
> > 
> > Right. Now if we do like Thomas suggested, we can have a common irq
> > stack that is big enough for hard and softirqs. After all there should
> > never be more than two or three nesting irq contexts:
> > hardirq->softirq->hardirq, softirq->hardirq, ...
> > 
> > At least if we put aside the unsane archs that can nest irqs somehow.
> 
> I really don't like the "larger" irq stack ... probably because I can't
> make it work easily :-) See my previous comment about how we get to
> thread_info on ppc.
> 
> What I *can* do that would help I suppose would be to switch to the irq
> stack before irq_enter/exit which would at least mean that softirq would
> run from the top of the irq stack which is better than the current
> situation.

Yeah I think that doing this should solve the biggest part of the problem on ppc.
You'll at least ensure that you have splitup stacks for tasks and softirq/irq stacks.

> 
> I'm fact I'll whip up a quick fix see if that might be enough of a band
> aid for RHEL7.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben.
> 
--
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/