linux-kernel - [RFC PATCH] x86, espfix: use spin

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]
Message-ID: <1431603465-12610-1-git-send-email-guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 May 2015 19:37:45 +0800
From:	Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	<x86@...nel.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <hpa@...or.com>,
	<guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC PATCH] x86, espfix: use spin_lock rather than mutex

The following lockdep warning occurrs when running with latest kernel:
[    3.178000] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[    3.183000] WARNING: CPU: 128 PID: 0 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2755 lockdep_trace_alloc+0xdd/0xe0()
[    3.193000] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(irqs_disabled_flags(flags))
[    3.199000] Modules linked in:

[    3.203000] CPU: 128 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/128 Not tainted 4.1.0-rc3 #70
[    3.221000]  0000000000000000 2d6601fb3e6d4e4c ffff88086fd5fc38 ffffffff81773f0a
[    3.230000]  0000000000000000 ffff88086fd5fc90 ffff88086fd5fc78 ffffffff8108c85a
[    3.238000]  ffff88086fd60000 0000000000000092 ffff88086fd60000 00000000000000d0
[    3.246000] Call Trace:
[    3.249000]  [<ffffffff81773f0a>] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65
[    3.255000]  [<ffffffff8108c85a>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8a/0xc0
[    3.261000]  [<ffffffff8108c8e5>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x55/0x70
[    3.268000]  [<ffffffff810ee24d>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0xdd/0xe0
[    3.274000]  [<ffffffff811cda0d>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xad/0xca0
[    3.281000]  [<ffffffff810ec7ad>] ? __lock_acquire+0xf6d/0x1560
[    3.288000]  [<ffffffff81219c8a>] alloc_page_interleave+0x3a/0x90
[    3.295000]  [<ffffffff8121b32d>] alloc_pages_current+0x17d/0x1a0
[    3.301000]  [<ffffffff811c869e>] ? __get_free_pages+0xe/0x50
[    3.308000]  [<ffffffff811c869e>] __get_free_pages+0xe/0x50
[    3.314000]  [<ffffffff8102640b>] init_espfix_ap+0x17b/0x320
[    3.320000]  [<ffffffff8105c691>] start_secondary+0xf1/0x1f0
[    3.327000] ---[ end trace 1b3327d9d6a1d62c ]---

This seems a mis-warning by lockdep, as we alloc pages with GFP_KERNEL in
init_espfix_ap() which is called before enabled local irq, and the lockdep
sub-system considers this behaviour as allocating memory with GFP_FS with
local irq disabled, then trigger the warning as mentioned about.
Though here we use GFP_NOFS rather GFP_KERNEL to avoid the warning, but
you know, init_espfix_ap is called with preempt and local irq disabled,
it is not a good idea to use mutex (might sleep) here.
So we convert the initialization lock to spin_lock here to avoid the noise.

Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c |   13 +++++++------
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c
index f5d0730..ceb35a3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/espfix_64.c
@@ -57,14 +57,14 @@
 # error "Need more than one PGD for the ESPFIX hack"
 #endif
 
-#define PGALLOC_GFP (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOTRACK | __GFP_REPEAT | __GFP_ZERO)
+#define PGALLOC_GFP (GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOTRACK | __GFP_ZERO)
 
 /* This contains the *bottom* address of the espfix stack */
 DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, espfix_stack);
 DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(unsigned long, espfix_waddr);
 
-/* Initialization mutex - should this be a spinlock? */
-static DEFINE_MUTEX(espfix_init_mutex);
+/* Initialization lock */
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(espfix_init_lock);
 
 /* Page allocation bitmap - each page serves ESPFIX_STACKS_PER_PAGE CPUs */
 #define ESPFIX_MAX_PAGES  DIV_ROUND_UP(CONFIG_NR_CPUS, ESPFIX_STACKS_PER_PAGE)
@@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ void init_espfix_ap(void)
 	int n;
 	void *stack_page;
 	pteval_t ptemask;
+	unsigned long flags;
 
 	/* We only have to do this once... */
 	if (likely(this_cpu_read(espfix_stack)))
@@ -158,7 +159,7 @@ void init_espfix_ap(void)
 	if (likely(stack_page))
 		goto done;
 
-	mutex_lock(&espfix_init_mutex);
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&espfix_init_lock, flags);
 
 	/* Did we race on the lock? */
 	stack_page = ACCESS_ONCE(espfix_pages[page]);
@@ -188,7 +189,7 @@ void init_espfix_ap(void)
 	}
 
 	pte_p = pte_offset_kernel(&pmd, addr);
-	stack_page = (void *)__get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL);
+	stack_page = (void *)__get_free_page(PGALLOC_GFP);
 	pte = __pte(__pa(stack_page) | (__PAGE_KERNEL_RO & ptemask));
 	for (n = 0; n < ESPFIX_PTE_CLONES; n++)
 		set_pte(&pte_p[n*PTE_STRIDE], pte);
@@ -197,7 +198,7 @@ void init_espfix_ap(void)
 	ACCESS_ONCE(espfix_pages[page]) = stack_page;
 
 unlock_done:
-	mutex_unlock(&espfix_init_mutex);
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&espfix_init_lock, flags);
 done:
 	this_cpu_write(espfix_stack, addr);
 	this_cpu_write(espfix_waddr, (unsigned long)stack_page
-- 
1.7.7

--
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/