linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] x86: Split syscall_trace

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]

Message-ID: <CALCETrVWOOs3HCnQNaqmnn480oQYn3scrWUfR4JJX9+zTxUDRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:22:31 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] x86: Split syscall_trace_enter into two phases

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 07/29, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't think so (unless I am confused again), note that user_exit() uses
>> > jump label. But this doesn't matter. I meant that we should avoid TIF_NOHZ
>> > if possible because I think it should die somehow (currently I do not know
>> > how ;). And because it is ugly to check the same condition twice:
>> >
>> >         if (work & TIF_NOHZ) {
>> >                 // user_exit()
>> >                 if (context_tracking_is_enabled())
>> >                         context_tracking_user_exit();
>> >         }
>> >
>> > TIF_NOHZ is set if and only if context_tracking_is_enabled() is true.
>> > So I think that
>> >
>> >         work = current_thread_info()->flags & (_TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY & ~TIF_NOHZ);
>> >
>> >         user_exit();
>> >
>> > looks a bit better. But I won't argue.
>>
>> I don't get it.
>
> Don't worry, you are not alone.
>
>> context_tracking_is_enabled is global, and TIF_NOHZ
>> is per-task.  Isn't this stuff determined per-task or per-cpu or
>> something?
>>
>> IOW, if one CPU is running something that's very heavily
>> userspace-oriented and another CPU is doing something syscall- or
>> sleep-heavy, then shouldn't only the first CPU end up paying the price
>> of context tracking?
>
> Please see another email I sent to Frederic.
>

I'll add at least this argument in favor of my approach: if context
tracking works at all, then it had better not demand that syscall
entry call user_exit if TIF_NOHZ is *not* set.  So adding the
condition ought to be safe, barring dumb bugs in my code.

--Andy

> Oleg.
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/