| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:36:18 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:02:51PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> > >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:53:29PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> > >> >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 06:00:14PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> > >> >> >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Returning state sounds like a bad idea, if we can reasonably avoid it.
>> > >>
>> > >> I agree, except that we already do it for exception_enter(), etc. But
>> > >> yes, changing fewer things is nice.
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > And I think I finally see what you are pointing out about my code: If
>> > >> > another NMI comes in between the time I increment ->dynticks_nmi_nesting
>> > >> > and the time I atomically increment ->dynticks, the nested NMI handler
>> > >> > will incorrectly believe that RCU is already paying attention to this CPU.
>> > >> > Which would indeed not be at all good, so good catch!!!
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Otherwise, I think that there may need to be enough state somewhere so
>> > >> >> that the outermost nested rcu_nmi_enter knows whether to increment
>> > >> >> dynticks. For example, dynticks_nmi_nesting could store the nesting
>> > >> >> count * 2 - (1 if the outermost nested user needs to increment
>> > >> >> dynticks). Something like:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
>> > >> >> {
>> > >> >> /* Be very careful -- this function may be called reentrently on the
>> > >> >> same CPU. */
>> > >> >> atomically: increment dynticks if it's even.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> /* If an rcu_nmi_enter/rcu_nmi_exit pair happens here, then it will not change
>> > >> >> * the state. */
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> local_inc(&dynticks_nmi_nesting, (we incremented dynticks ? 1 : 2));
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> WARN_ON(we incremented dynticks and dynticks_nmi_nesting was nonzero);
>> > >> >> }
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
>> > >> >> {
>> > >> >> WARN_ON(!(dynticks & 1));
>> > >> >> locally atomically: dynticks_nmi_nesting -= 2, unless
>> > >> >> dynticks_nmi_nesting == 1, in which case set it to zero
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> if (dynticks_nmi_nesting was 1)
>> > >> >> atomic_inc(&dynticks);
>> > >> >> }
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> The invariant here is that, for a single unnested enter/exit, if
>> > >> >> dynticks_nmi_nesting != 0, then dynticks is odd. As a result, an
>> > >> >> rcu_nmi_enter/rcu_nmi_exit pair at any time when dynticks_nmi_nesting
>> > >> >> != 0 *or* dynticks is odd will have no net effect, so the invariant,
>> > >> >> in fact, holds for all invocations, nested or otherwise.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> At least one of those conditions is true at all times during the
>> > >> >> execution of outermost pair, starting with the first atomic operation
>> > >> >> and ending with the final atomic_inc. So they nest properly no matter
>> > >> >> what else happens (unless, of course, someone else pokes dynticks in
>> > >> >> the middle).
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Thoughts?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Let's see... The evenness of ->dynticks should be preserved by nested NMI
>> > >> > handlers, so the check and increment need not be atomic. We don't have
>> > >> > any way (other than atomic operations) to do local atomic modifications
>> > >> > on all architectures, because we cannot mask NMIs. (Yes, it can work
>> > >> > on x86, but this is common code that needs to work everywhere.) On the
>> > >> > other hand, presumably NMIs are rare, so atomic modification of the NMI
>> > >> > nesting counter should be OK, at least if it proves absolutely necessary.
>> > >> > And I am thinking that a mechanical proof will be needed here. :-/
>> > >> >
>> > >> > But first, let me try generating the code and informally evaluating it:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 1 struct rcu_dynticks {
>> > >> > 2 long long dynticks_nesting;
>> > >> > 3 int dynticks_nmi_nesting;
>> > >> > 4 atomic_t dynticks;
>> > >> > 5 };
>> > >> > 6
>> > >> > 7 void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
>> > >> > 8 {
>> > >> > 9 struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
>> > >> > 10 int incby = 2;
>> > >> > 11
>> > >> > 12 if (!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1)) {
>> > >> > 13 smp_mb__before_atomic();
>> > >> > 14 atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks);
>> > >> > 15 smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> > >> > 16 WARN_ON_ONCE(!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
>> > >> > 17 incby = 1;
>> > >>
>> > >> WARN_ON_ONCE(rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting < 1) here, perhaps?
>> > >
>> > > That would make sense.
>> > >
>> > >> > 18 }
>> > >> > 19 rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting += incby;
>> > >>
>> > >> Oh, I see why you don't need local_add -- it's because an nmi in the
>> > >> middle of this increment won't have any effect on the interrupted
>> > >> code, so even a software RMW will be okay.
>> > >
>> > > Yep! ;-)
>> > >
>> > >> > 20 barrier();
>> > >> > 21 }
>> > >> > 22
>> > >> > 23 void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
>> > >> > 24 {
>> > >> > 25 struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
>> > >> > 26
>> > >> > 27 WARN_ON_ONCE(!rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting);
>> > >> > 28 WARN_ON_ONCE(!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
>> > >> > 29 if (rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting != 1) {
>> > >>
>> > >> WARN_ON_ONCE(rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting < 2), perhaps?
>> > >
>> > > This is already implied by the WARN_ON_ONCE() on line 27 and the check
>> > > on line 29.
>> >
>> > I was worried about negative numbers. Maybe change line 27 to
>> > WARN_ON_ONCE(rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting <= 0), then? (Or is it
>> > unsigned? If so, let's make to signed to catch this type of error.)
>>
>> Good point, they are signed, so your WARN_ON_ONCE() would work.
>>
>> > >> > 30 rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting -= 2;
>> > >> > 31 return;
>> > >> > 32 }
>> > >> > 33 rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting = 0;
>> > >> > 34 smp_mb__before_atomic();
>> > >>
>> > >> This implies barrier(), right?
>> > >
>> > > Yep!
>> > >
>> > >> > 35 atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks);
>> > >> > 36 smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> > >> > 37 WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1);
>> > >> > 38 }
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Line 9 picks up a pointer to this CPU's rcu_dynticks structure and line 10
>> > >> > assumes that we don't need to increment ->dynticks.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Line 12 checks to see if ->dynticks is even. Note that this check is
>> > >> > stable: If there are nested NMIs, they will increment ->dynticks twice
>> > >> > or not at all, and either way preserves the evenness (to be proven, of
>> > >> > course, but that is the plan). If ->dynticks is even, lines 13-15
>> > >> > atomically increment it, line 16 complains if still even, and line 17
>> > >> > says we will increment ->dynticks_nmi_nesting by only 1.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Either way, line 19 increments ->dynticks_nmi_nesting as needed and
>> > >> > line 20 keeps the compiler from getting too cute.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > For rcu_nmi_exit(), line 25 again picks up this CPUs rcu_dynticks
>> > >> > structure. Lines 27 and 28 complain bitterly if invariants are violated.
>> > >> > If line 29 finds that the value of ->dynticks_nmi_nesting is not 1,
>> > >> > then line 30 subtracts 2 from ->dynticks_nmi_nesting and line 31 returns.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Otherwise, line 33 sets ->dynticks_nmi_nesting to zero, lines 34-36
>> > >> > atomically increment ->dynticks with full ordering, and line 37
>> > >> > complains bitterly if ->dynticks is not even.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > So, if an NMI occurs before rcu_nmi_enter's atomic increment, then the
>> > >> > nested NMI's rcu_nmi_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit() will think that they are
>> > >> > not nested, which is the correct thing for them to think in that case.
>> > >> > They will increment ->dynticks twice and restore ->dynticks_nmi_nesting
>> > >> > to zero (adding and then subtracting 1). If the NMI happens after the
>> > >> > atomic increment, then the nested rcu_nmi_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit()
>> > >> > will leave ->dynticks alone, and will restore ->dynticks_nmi_nesting
>> > >> > to zero (adding and subtracting two again). If the NMI happens after
>> > >> > the increment of ->dynticks_nmi_nesting, the nested NMI's rcu_nmi_enter()
>> > >> > and rcu_nmi_exit() will again restore ->dynticks_nmi_nesting, but this
>> > >> > time to one (again adding and subtracting two).
>> > >> >
>> > >> > In rcu_nmi_exit(), ->dynticks_nmi_nesting of zero had better not happen,
>> > >> > one means we need to atomically increment ->dynticks, and other values
>> > >> > mean that we are partially or fully nested. Reasoning proceeds as for
>> > >> > rcu_nmi_enter(), but in the opposite direction.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Whew! That might even work.
>> > >>
>> > >> I think I like this, with the warnings above.
>> > >
>> > > OK with dropping the one that I called out as redundant?
>> >
>> > Sure, but see about.
>> >
>> > >
>> > >> > But how about taking a different approach. Assuming that there can
>> > >> > never be more than (say) 14 nesting NMI-like things, use the lower
>> > >> > four bits of ->dynticks to represent the NMI nesting and the upper
>> > >> > 28 bits as the counter. This of course requires modifying lots of
>> > >> > places in RCU that check the counter, but it is probably time to
>> > >> > abstract the check anyway.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > This would allow my earlier attempted logic to work and (maybe) simplify
>> > >> > the reasoning a bit (and yes, the "magic" constants need macros):
>> > >> >
>> > >> > void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
>> > >> > {
>> > >> > struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
>> > >> > int nesting = atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0xf;
>> > >> > int incby = 0x01;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > WARN_ON_ONCE(nexting == 0xf);
>> > >> > if (nesting == 0) {
>> > >> > if (atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x10)
>> > >> > return;
>> > >> > incby = 0x11;
>> > >> > }
>> > >> > smp_mb__before_atomic();
>> > >> > atomic_add(&rdtp->dynticks, incby);
>> > >> > smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> > >> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
>> > >> > }
>> > >> >
>> > >> > void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
>> > >> > {
>> > >> > struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
>> > >> > int nesting = atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0xf;
>> > >> > int incby = 0x0f;
>> > >> >
>> > >> > if (nesting == 0)
>> > >> > return;
>> > >> > if (nesting > 1)
>> > >> > incby = -1;
>> > >> > smp_mb__before_atomic();
>> > >> > atomic_add(&rdtp->dynticks, incby);
>> > >> > smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> > >> > WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1);
>> > >> > }
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Over to you! ;-)
>> > >>
>> > >> This latter one is all you :)
>> > >
>> > > Well, let's see how I feel about it after trying a Promela model of
>> > > the first code sequence. ;-)
>> >
>> > :)
>> >
>> > Does Promela understand the differences between this type of
>> > reentrancy and real threading?
>>
>> Not as far as I know. But it can be tricked into making this distinction.
>> One thread just has the Promela code as is, and the other thread has
>> the same Promela code entirely contained in an atomic block. This means
>> that the entire second thread must executed at one point in the first
>> thread, just like an NMI would.
>
> And the following Promela model claims that your approach works.
> Should I trust it? ;-)
>
I think so.
Want to write a patch? If so, whose tree should it go in? I can add
it to my IST series, but that seems a bit odd.
--Andy
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /*
> * Promela model for Andy Lutomirski's suggested change to rcu_nmi_enter()
> * that allows nesting.
> *
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> * (at your option) any later version.
> *
> * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> * GNU General Public License for more details.
> *
> * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> * along with this program; if not, you can access it online at
> * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html.
> *
> * Copyright IBM Corporation, 2014
> *
> * Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> */
>
> byte dynticks_nesting;
> byte dynticks_nmi_nesting;
> byte dynticks;
> byte busy;
>
> /*
> * Promela verision of rcu_nmi_enter().
> */
> inline rcu_nmi_enter()
> {
> assert(dynticks_nmi_nesting >= 0);
> if
> :: (dynticks & 1) == 0 ->
> atomic {
> dynticks = dynticks + 1;
> }
> assert((dynticks & 1) == 1);
> dynticks_nmi_nesting = dynticks_nmi_nesting + 1;
> assert(dynticks_nmi_nesting >= 1);
> :: else ->
> dynticks_nmi_nesting = dynticks_nmi_nesting + 2;
> fi;
> }
>
> /*
> * Promela verision of rcu_nmi_exit().
> */
> inline rcu_nmi_exit()
> {
> assert(dynticks_nmi_nesting > 0);
> assert((dynticks & 1) != 0);
> if
> :: dynticks_nmi_nesting != 1 ->
> dynticks_nmi_nesting = dynticks_nmi_nesting - 2;
> :: else ->
> dynticks_nmi_nesting = 0;
> atomic {
> dynticks = dynticks + 1;
> }
> assert((dynticks & 1) == 0);
> fi;
> }
>
> /*
> * Base-level NMI runs non-atomically. Crudely emulates process-level
> * dynticks-idle entry/exit.
> */
> proctype base_NMI()
> {
> do
> :: if
> :: 1 -> atomic {
> dynticks = dynticks + 1;
> }
> busy = 0;
> :: 1 -> skip;
> fi;
> rcu_nmi_enter();
> assert((dynticks & 1) == 1);
> rcu_nmi_exit();
> if
> :: busy -> skip;
> :: !busy ->
> atomic {
> dynticks = dynticks + 1;
> }
> busy = 1;
> fi;
> od;
> }
>
> /*
> * Nested NMI runs atomically to emulate interrupting base_level().
> */
> proctype nested_NMI()
> {
> do
> :: atomic {
> rcu_nmi_enter();
> assert((dynticks & 1) == 1);
> rcu_nmi_exit();
> }
> od;
> }
>
> init {
> dynticks_nesting = 0;
> dynticks_nmi_nesting = 0;
> dynticks = 0;
> busy = 0;
> run base_NMI();
> run nested_NMI();
> }
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists