linux-kernel - RE: [V3 PATCH 3/4] kexec: Fix race between panic() and crash

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 09:57:11 +0000
From:	河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO 
	<hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
To:	"'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI 
	<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: RE: [V3 PATCH 3/4] kexec: Fix race between panic() and
 crash_kexec() called directly

> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org]
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 08:53:11AM +0000, 河合英宏 / KAWAI，HIDEHIRO wrote:
> > > I understand your question.  I don't intend to permit the recursive
> > > call of crash_kexec() as for 'old_cpu != this_cpu' check.  That is
> > > needed for the case of panic() --> crash_kexec().  Since panic_cpu has
> > > already been set to this_cpu in panic() (please see PATCH 1/4), no one
> > > can run crash_kexec() without 'old_cpu != this_cpu' check.
> > >
> > > If you don't like this check, I would also be able to handle this case
> > > like below:
> > >
> > > crash_kexec()
> > > {
> > > 	old_cpu = atomic_cmpxchg(&panic_cpu, -1, this_cpu);
> > > 	if (old_cpu != -1)
> > > 		return;
> > >
> > > 	__crash_kexec();
> > > }
> > >
> > > panic()
> > > {
> > > 	atomic_cmpxchg(&panic_cpu, -1, this_cpu);
> > > 	__crash_kexec();
> > > ...
> > >
> >
> > Is that OK?
> 
> I suppose so, but I think me getting confused means comments can be
> added/improved.

OK, I'll improve comments and description in the next version.

Thanks!

Hidehiro Kawai
Hitachi, Ltd. Research & Development Group