linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 1/5] x86, fpu: introduce per-cpu "bool in_kernel

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: <20140905134340.GA14242@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2014 15:43:40 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/5] x86, fpu: introduce per-cpu "bool in_kernel_fpu"

interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle() tries to detect if kernel_fpu_begin()
is safe or not. In particular it should obviously deny the nested
kernel_fpu_begin() and this logic doesn't look clean.

If use_eager_fpu() == T we rely on a) __thread_has_fpu() check in
interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(), and b) on the fact that _begin() does
__thread_clear_has_fpu().

Otherwise we demand that the interrupted task has no FPU if it is in
kernel mode, this works because __kernel_fpu_begin() does clts() and
interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle() checks X86_CR0_TS.

Add the per-cpu "bool in_kernel_fpu" variable, and change this code
to check/set/clear it. This allows to do some cleanups and fixes.

Note that the current code looks racy. Say, kernel_fpu_begin() right
after math_state_restore()->__thread_fpu_begin() will overwrite the
regs we are going to restore. This patch doesn't try to fix this, it
only adds a comment, but "in_kernel_fpu" can also be used to implement
kernel_fpu_disable() / kernel_fpu_enable().

The patch also moves WARN_ON_ONCE() under preempt_disable() just to
make this_cpu_read() look better, this is not really needed. And in
fact I think we should move it into __kernel_fpu_begin().

Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
 arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h |    2 +-
 arch/x86/kernel/i387.c      |   10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
index ed8089d..5e275d3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/i387.h
@@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ extern void __kernel_fpu_end(void);

 static inline void kernel_fpu_begin(void)
 {
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
 	preempt_disable();
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq_fpu_usable());
 	__kernel_fpu_begin();
 }

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
index d5dd808..8fb8868 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/i387.c
@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
 #include <asm/fpu-internal.h>
 #include <asm/user.h>

+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, in_kernel_fpu);
+
 /*
  * Were we in an interrupt that interrupted kernel mode?
  *
@@ -33,6 +35,9 @@
  */
 static inline bool interrupted_kernel_fpu_idle(void)
 {
+	if (this_cpu_read(in_kernel_fpu))
+		return false;
+
 	if (use_eager_fpu())
 		return __thread_has_fpu(current);

@@ -73,6 +78,9 @@ void __kernel_fpu_begin(void)
 {
 	struct task_struct *me = current;

+	this_cpu_write(in_kernel_fpu, true);
+
+	/* FIXME: race with math_state_restore()-like code */
 	if (__thread_has_fpu(me)) {
 		__thread_clear_has_fpu(me);
 		__save_init_fpu(me);
@@ -99,6 +107,8 @@ void __kernel_fpu_end(void)
 	} else {
 		stts();
 	}
+
+	this_cpu_write(in_kernel_fpu, false);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(__kernel_fpu_end);

-- 
1.5.5.1

--
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/