linux-kernel - x86: Inconsistent xAPIC synchronization in arch_irq_work

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52DE6FCE.2050708@siemens.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jan 2014 14:02:06 +0100
From:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: x86: Inconsistent xAPIC synchronization in arch_irq_work_raise?

Hi all,

while trying to plug a race in the CPU hotplug code on xAPIC systems, I
was analyzing IPI transmission patterns. The handlers in
arch/x86/include/asm/ipi.h first wait for ICR, then send. In contrast,
arch_irq_work_raise sends the self-IPI directly and then waits. This
looks inconsistent. Is it intended?

BTW, the races are in wakeup_secondary_cpu_via_init and
wakeup_secondary_cpu_via_nmi (lacking IRQ disable around ICR accesses).
There we also send first, then wait for completion. But I guess that is
due to the code originally only being used during boot. Will send fixes
for those once the sync pattern is clear to me.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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/