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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <53CEC8AC.7020700@hp.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:25:16 -0400 From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@...il.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] futex: introduce an optimistic spinning futex On 07/22/2014 05:59 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:39:17AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> Anyway, there is one big fail in the entire futex stack that we 'need' >>>> to sort some day and that is NUMA. Some people (again database people) >>>> explicitly do not use futexes and instead use sysvsem because of this. >>>> >>>> The problem with numa futexes is that because they're vaddr based there >>>> is no (persistent) node information. You always end up having to fall >>>> back to looking in all nodes before you can guarantee there is no >>>> matching futex. >>>> >>>> One way to achieve it is by extending the futex value to include a node >>>> number, but that's obviously a complete ABI break. Then again, it should >>>> be pretty straight fwd, since the node number doesn't need to be part of >>>> the actual atomic update part, just part of the userspace storage. >>> So you want per node hash buckets, right? Fair enough, but how do you >>> make sure, that no thread/process on a different node is fiddling with >>> that "node bound" futex as well? >> You don't and that should work just as well, just slower. But since the >> node id is in the futex 'value' we'll always end up in the right >> node-hash, even if its a remote one. >> >> So yes, per node hashes, and a persistent futex->node map. > Which works fine as long as you only have the futex_q on the stack of > the blocked task. If user space is lying to you, then you just end up > with a bunch of threads sleeping forever. Who cares? > > But if you create independent kernel state, which we have with > pi_state and which you need for finegrained locking and further > spinning fun, you open up another can of worms. Simply because this > would enable rogue user space to create multiple instances of the > kernel internal state. I can predict the CVEs resulting from that > even without using a crystal ball. > > Thanks, > > tglx I think NUMA futex, if implemented, is a completely independent piece that have no direct relationship with optimistic spinning futex. It should be a separate patch and not mixing with optimistic spinning patch which will only make the latter one more complicated. -Longman -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists