[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <632443866.9505.1426520965530.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:49:25 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory
barrier (x86) (v12)
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> To: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "KOSAKI Motohiro"
> <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Nicholas Miell"
> <nmiell@...cast.net>, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Alan Cox"
> <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "Lai Jiangshan" <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, "Stephen Hemminger"
> <stephen@...workplumber.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Josh Triplett" <josh@...htriplett.org>,
> "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>, "Nick Piggin" <npiggin@...nel.dk>
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:24:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sys_membarrier(): system/process-wide memory barrier (x86) (v12)
>
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:19:39 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > I suppose this is an unprivileged syscall; so what do we do about:
> >
> > for (;;)
> > sys_membar(EXPEDITED);
> >
> > Which would spray the entire system with IPIs at break neck speed.
>
> Perhaps it should be rate limited. Have parameters (controlled via
> sysctl) that will only allow so many of these per ms. If it exceeds it,
> then the call will end up being a schedule_timeout() till it is allowed
> to continue. Thus, the above will spit out a few hundred IPIs, then
> sleep for a millisecond, and then spit out another hundred IPIs and
> sleep again.
>
> That would prevent any DoS attacks.
As I pointed out in my other email, EXPEDITED | ~PRIVATE currently
returns -EINVAL. The only way to do a system-wide barrier with
this membarrier implementation is to use synchronize_sched() (~EXPEDITED),
which I strongly doubt would perform a DoS.
If we eventually care about a EXPEDITED | ~PRIVATE implementation,
then I agree that rate limiting might be a good way to do it. I would
be a bit uncomfortable sending IPIs to _all_ CPUs though, even with
rate limiting. But perhaps it's a non-issue ?
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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