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]

Date:	Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:44:11 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
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 07/29, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> 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:
> >> >
> >> > 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.

I disagree. At least I disagree with that you should enforce this in
syscall_trace_enter() paths, and in any case this has nothing to do with
these changes.

But again, I won't insist, so please forget.

> So adding the
> condition ought to be safe, barring dumb bugs in my code.

Yes, I think it is technically correct.

Oleg.

--
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/