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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:46:43 +0200
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 Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 06:55:47AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 15:56 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 02:42:57PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 04:44 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > So the safest way to fix this is to unconditionally call do_softirq()
> > > > from irq_exit().
> > > > A performance penalty may come along but safety primes.
> > > > 
> > > > We should probably do that and work on longer term solutions (Kconfig
> > > > based arch switch, etc...)
> > > > for the next merge window?
> > > 
> > > As you prefer, though I'm keen on getting the "fast" version in RHEL7 if
> > > RH will take it :-)
> > 
> > So what is the fast version? Converting __do_softirq() to do_softirq()
> > unconditionally.
> > 
> > RH will accept any fix that goes upstream.
> 
> No, me fixing powerpc do_IRQ to do irq_exit run on the irq stack, and
> your fix for everybody else with an ifdef such that x86_64 and powerpc
> get to skip the additional stack switch.
> 
> > > 
> > > From the generic code POV, it's a one-liner #ifdef to select between
> > > do_softirq and __do_softirq() right ? Then it's up to the arch to
> > > #define I_CAN_DO_FAST !
> > 
> > I'd rather say #define I_CAN_DO_SAFE :)
> > 
> > But I guess the kind of symbol we want is some ARCH_HAS_IRQ_STACK_LOW_HANDLER
> 
> ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK

Ok, I'll pick this one.

Thanks!

> 
> Cheers,
> Ben.
> 
> > > 
> > > > I'll respin the series plus the regression fix, unless somebody has a
> > > > better solution.
> > > 
> > > 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/