linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix a race condition in cancelable mcs spinlocks

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:	Wed, 4 Jun 2014 08:53:48 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	jejb@...isc-linux.org, deller@....de, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chegu_vinod@...com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Waiman.Long@...com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	riel@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr@...com,
	hpa@...or.com, andi@...stfloor.org, aswin@...com,
	scott.norton@...com, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix a race condition in cancelable mcs spinlocks



On Tue, 3 Jun 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:56:40PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Architecturally, there is a way we could emulate the atomic exchange
> > instructions.  We could have a special section of memory that always
> > triggers a page trap.  In the Q state dtlb trap handlers we could
> > recognise the "atomic" section of memory and wrap the attempted
> > modification in a semaphore.  This would add a bit of overhead, but not
> > a huge amount if we do it in the trap handlers like the TMPALIAS
> > flushes.  This involves a lot of work for us because we have to decode
> > the instructions in software, recognise the operations and manually
> > apply the hashed semaphores around them.  If we did it like this, all
> > we'd need by way of mainline support is that variables treated as
> > atomically exchangeable should be in a separate section (because it's a
> > page fault handler effectively, we need them all separated from "normal"
> > code).  This would probably require some type of variable marker and if
> > we ever saw a xchg or cmpxchg on a variable without the marker, we could
> > break the build.
> 
> Cute, but I don't think that's entirely feasible given how these things
> can be embedded in other structures (some dynamically allocated etc..).

We could deliberately misalign all the atomic variables - then, we would 
take the alignment trap (that is already written) and take the atomic 
spinlock in it.

I've got another idea - we could stop the other CPUs while xchg or cmpxchg 
is being executed. But there is a problem if the other CPU has interrupts 
disabled. Could we mask interrupts on PA-RISC in such a way that they are 
all disabled except one IPI that stops the CPU temporarily? Maybe do not 
mask interrupts with PSW I-bit and mask them with EIEM instead (leaving 
the one interrupt for cmpxchg IPI enabled)?

Mikulas
--
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/