linux-kernel - single_task_running() vs. preemption warnings (was Re: [PATCH] kvm: fix preemption warnings in kvm_vcpu

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: <55FAEE0C.60904@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:45:00 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Dominik Dingel <dingel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: single_task_running() vs. preemption warnings (was Re: [PATCH] kvm:
 fix preemption warnings in kvm_vcpu_block)

On 17/09/2015 18:27, Dominik Dingel wrote:
> +			preempt_disable();
> +			solo = single_task_running();
> +			preempt_enable();
> +
>  			cur = ktime_get();
> -		} while (single_task_running() && ktime_before(cur, stop));

That's the obvious way to fix it, but the TOCTTOU problem (which was in
the buggy code too) is obvious too. :)  And the only other user of
single_task_running() in drivers/crypto/mcryptd.c has the same issue.

In fact, because of the way the function is used ("maybe I can do a
little bit of work before going to sleep") it will likely be called many
times in a loop.  This in turn means that:

- any wrong result due to a concurrent process migration would be
rectified very soon

- preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() can actually be just as expensive
or more expensive than single_task_running() itself.

Therefore, I wonder if single_task_running() should just use
raw_smp_processor_id().  At least the TOCTTOU issue can be clearly
documented in the function comment, instead of being hidden behind each
of the callers.

Thanks,

Paolo
--
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/