linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] watchdog: add watchdog

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: <20150422151823.GV98296@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:18:23 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>
Cc:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
	chai wen <chaiw.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
	Ben Zhang <benzh@...omium.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] watchdog: add watchdog_cpumask sysctl to assist
 nohz

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:07:00AM -0400, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
> 
> Chris,
> 
> I think it would also be nice to check the plausibility of the user input.
> 
> +int proc_watchdog_cpumask(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> +                          void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> +        int err;
> +
> +        mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
> +        err = proc_do_large_bitmap(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
> +        if (!err && write) {
> +                /* Remove impossible cpus to keep sysctl output cleaner. */
> +                cpumask_and(watchdog_cpumask, watchdog_cpumask,
> +                            cpu_possible_mask);
> +
> +                if (watchdog_enabled && watchdog_thresh)
> +                        smpboot_update_cpumask_percpu_thread(&watchdog_threads,
> +                                                             watchdog_cpumask);
> +        }
> +        mutex_unlock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
> +        return err;
> +}
> 
> I think the user should only be allowed to specify a mask that is a subset of
> tick_nohz_full_mask as only those CPUs don't have a watchdog thread by default.
> In other words, the user should not be able to interfere with housekeeping CPUs.

Hi Uli,

I am not sure that is necessary.  This was supposed to be a debugging
interface for nohz (and possibly other technologies).  I think restricting
it to just tick_nohz makes it difficult to try out new things or debug
certain problems.

Personally, I feel anyone who will use this sys interface will need to do so
at their own risk.


Cheers,
Don

> 
> For example, add a plausibility check like so:
> 
>   save watchdog_cpumask because proc_do_large_bitmap() is going to change it
> 
>   proc_do_large_bitmap()
> 
>   // return an error if the user-specified mask includes a housekeeping CPU
>   if (watchdog_cpumask and 'negated tick_nohz_full_mask') {
>       restore saved watchdog_cpumask
>       return -EINVAL
>   }
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Uli
--
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/