linux-kernel - [PATCH] x86-64, espfix: consider IRQs are off when initializing

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: <1405610015-27464-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:13:35 -0400
From:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To:	hpa@...or.com
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Subject: [PATCH] x86-64, espfix: consider IRQs are off when initializing

When going through our initialization code (init_espfix_ap() ) we need to
keep in mind IRQs are off, and we need to handle it appropriately:

 - Do not allocate with __GFP_FS.
 - No point in using a mutex.

Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c |    8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c
index 6afbb16..3ef78ce 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, espfix_stack);
 DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, espfix_waddr);
 
 /* Initialization mutex - should this be a spinlock? */
-static DEFINE_MUTEX(espfix_init_mutex);
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(espfix_init_mutex);
 
 /* Page allocation bitmap - each page serves ESPFIX_STACKS_PER_PAGE CPUs */
 #define ESPFIX_MAX_PAGES  DIV_ROUND_UP(CONFIG_NR_CPUS, ESPFIX_STACKS_PER_PAGE)
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ void init_espfix_ap(void)
 	if (likely(stack_page))
 		goto done;
 
-	mutex_lock(&espfix_init_mutex);
+	spin_lock(&espfix_init_mutex);
 
 	/* Did we race on the lock? */
 	stack_page = ACCESS_ONCE(espfix_pages[page]);
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ void init_espfix_ap(void)
 	}
 
 	pte_p = pte_offset_kernel(&pmd, addr);
-	stack_page = (void *)__get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
+	stack_page = (void *)__get_free_page(GFP_ATOMIC);
 	pte = __pte(__pa(stack_page) | (__PAGE_KERNEL_RO & ptemask));
 	paravirt_alloc_pte(&init_mm, __pa(stack_page) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
 	for (n = 0; n < ESPFIX_PTE_CLONES; n++)
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ void init_espfix_ap(void)
 	ACCESS_ONCE(espfix_pages[page]) = stack_page;
 
 unlock_done:
-	mutex_unlock(&espfix_init_mutex);
+	spin_unlock(&espfix_init_mutex);
 done:
 	this_cpu_write(espfix_stack, addr);
 	this_cpu_write(espfix_waddr, (unsigned long)stack_page
-- 
1.7.10.4

--
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/