linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.12 022/142] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_*() 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 16 May 2015 09:36:22 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:	stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: [PATCH 3.12 022/142] ring-buffer: Replace this_cpu_*() with __this_cpu_*()

From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>

3.12-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

===============

commit 80a9b64e2c156b6523e7a01f2ba6e5d86e722814 upstream.

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.

Paul McKenney stated that __this_cpu_() versions produce much better code on
other architectures than this_cpu_() does, if we know that the call is done in
a preempt disabled location.

I also changed the recursive_unlock() to use two local variables instead
of accessing the per_cpu variable twice.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150317114411.GE3589@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150317104038.312e73d1@gandalf.local.home

Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Reported-by: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Tested-by: Uwe Kleine-Koenig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
---
 kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c | 11 +++++------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
index 21ee379e3e4b..469af802d14e 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
@@ -2651,7 +2651,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, current_context);
 
 static __always_inline int trace_recursive_lock(void)
 {
-	unsigned int val = this_cpu_read(current_context);
+	unsigned int val = __this_cpu_read(current_context);
 	int bit;
 
 	if (in_interrupt()) {
@@ -2668,18 +2668,17 @@ static __always_inline int trace_recursive_lock(void)
 		return 1;
 
 	val |= (1 << bit);
-	this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
+	__this_cpu_write(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_read(current_context);
 
-	val--;
-	val &= this_cpu_read(current_context);
-	this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
+	val &= val & (val - 1);
+	__this_cpu_write(current_context, val);
 }
 
 #else
-- 
2.3.7

--
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/