linux-kernel - Re: 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]

Date:	Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:07:52 +0200
From:	Dominik Dingel <dingel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.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>
Subject: Re: single_task_running() vs. preemption warnings (was Re: [PATCH]
 kvm: fix preemption warnings in kvm_vcpu_block)

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 18:45:00 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.

Right, worst thing we fly another round.

I am not sure about the case for mcryptd.c. I think it might be that the worker
there is bounded to one cpu and will not be migrated.

I really need to look more in the details what is happening with that worker.

> 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.

Yes to be useful it should probably call raw_smp_processor_id,
and as a lot of code actually already does just does that I do not really see much
down sides.

@Tim, would it be okay if I change single_task_running and add a specific comment on top?

> 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/