linux-kernel - [RFC][PATCH] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_{read,write} with this_cpu

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:31:54 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_{read,write} with
 this_cpu_ptr()

It has come to my attention that this_cpu_read/write are horrible on
architectures other than x86. Worse yet, they actually disable
preemption or interrupts! This caused some unexpected tracing results
on ARM.

   101.356868: preempt_count_add <-ring_buffer_lock_reserve
   101.356870: preempt_count_sub <-ring_buffer_lock_reserve

The ring_buffer_lock_reserve has recursion protection that requires
accessing a per cpu variable. But since preempt_disable() is traced, it
too got traced while accessing the variable that is suppose to prevent
recursion like this.

The generic version of this_cpu_read() and write() are:

#define _this_cpu_generic_read(pcp)					\
({	typeof(pcp) ret__;						\
	preempt_disable();						\
	ret__ = *this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp));					\
	preempt_enable();						\
	ret__;								\
})

#define _this_cpu_generic_to_op(pcp, val, op)				\
do {									\
	unsigned long flags;						\
	raw_local_irq_save(flags);					\
	*__this_cpu_ptr(&(pcp)) op val;					\
	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);					\
} while (0)


Which is unacceptable for locations that know they are within preempt
disabled or interrupt disabled locations.

I may go and remove all this_cpu_read,write() calls from my code
because of this.

Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Reported-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
---
diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
index 5040d44fe5a3..be33c6093ca5 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
@@ -2679,7 +2679,11 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, current_context);
 
 static __always_inline int trace_recursive_lock(void)
 {
-	unsigned int val = this_cpu_read(current_context);
+	/*
+	 * We can not use this_cpu_read() and this_cpu_write() because
+	 * the generic versions call preempt_disable()
+	 */
+	unsigned int val = *this_cpu_ptr(&current_context);
 	int bit;
 
 	if (in_interrupt()) {
@@ -2696,18 +2700,18 @@ static __always_inline int trace_recursive_lock(void)
 		return 1;
 
 	val |= (1 << bit);
-	this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
+	*this_cpu_ptr(&current_context) = val;
 
 	return 0;
 }
 
 static __always_inline void trace_recursive_unlock(void)
 {
-	unsigned int val = this_cpu_read(current_context);
+	unsigned int val = *this_cpu_ptr(&current_context);
 
 	val--;
 	val &= this_cpu_read(current_context);
-	this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
+	*this_cpu_ptr(&current_context) = val;
 }
 
 #else
--
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/