linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] incorrect cpumask behavior with CPUMASK

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:58:03 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"\<linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org\> Mailing List" 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] incorrect cpumask behavior with CPUMASK_OFFSTACK

Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru> writes:
>>> The second patch that I am not sure if we wnat, but it seems to be useful
>>> until struct cpumask is fully dynamic is to convert what looks like
>>> whole-set operations e.g. copies, namely:
>>> cpumask_setall, cpumask_clear, cpumask_copy to always operate on NR_CPUS
>>> bits to ensure there's no stale garbage left in the mask should the
>>> cpu count increases later.
>> You can't do this, because dynamically allocated cpumasks don't have
>> NR_CPUS bits.
>
> Well, right now they certainly have. As in, it's a static define and we allocate
> a bitmap to fit the (in my case) up to 8192 bits into such off-stack masks.

You're right, we should fix that properly.  Right now, cpumask_size() has:

	/* FIXME: Once all cpumask assignments are eliminated, this
	 * can be nr_cpumask_bits */
	return BITS_TO_LONGS(NR_CPUS) * sizeof(long);

>> Let's just kill all the cpus_ functions.  This wasn't done originally
>> because archs which didn't care about offline cpumasks didn't want the
>> churn.  In particular, they must not copy struct cpumask by assignment,
>> and fixing those is a fair bit of churn.
>
> Ah, copy masks by assignment, I see.
> Well, I guess we can eliminate the users outside of the affected arch trees
> (I assume in x86 there would be no objections?) and perhaps add a warning to
> checkpatch.pl?

OK... I have done a sweep.  It's not *that* bad with spatch.

I'm going to remove all the old functions.  Expect a series RSN.

Cheers,
Rusty.

--
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/