linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] restartable sequences: x86 ABI

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADm5QV90dE+05in-P9_ZjcF=mB173gFmD=LALxNDeye0HZ1Zug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 22:19:24 -0700
From:	Paul Turner <commonly@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] restartable sequences: x86 ABI

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 04:57:05PM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> > +static void rseq_sched_out(struct preempt_notifier *pn,
> > +                        struct task_struct *next)
> > +{
> > +     set_thread_flag(TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME);
> > +}
> >
> >  static __read_mostly struct preempt_ops rseq_preempt_ops = {
> >       .sched_in = rseq_sched_in_nop,
> > -     .sched_out = rseq_sched_out_nop,
> > +     .sched_out = rseq_sched_out,
> >  };
>
> Since we're unconditionally setting this TIF flag for these tasks, can't
> we introduce something similar to the (contested) TIF_NOHZ_FULL thing
> which is kept on the task indefinitely.
>
So Andy and I talked about this also, I'm in favor, in particular this
has two nice effects:
 a) In exit_to_usermode_loop() we can ensure that this is evaluated
prior to _TIF_SIGPENDING.  This removes the current requirement that
we also validate this state in setup_rt_frame() [which can perturb
this state prior to our existing notifier].
 b) We avoid spurious interactions with other things that use notify resume.

> That avoids having the preempt notifiers and this atomic op in the
> schedule path.


So we still want something there (although it can be definitely be
inlined as opposed to a preempt_notifier) since this allows us to only
evaluate this check on returns to user-space that might matter as
opposed to every syscall.
--
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/