linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/14] KVM: x86: remove notifiers from PIT discard policy

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: <20160219150434.GA25910@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:04:35 +0100
From:	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Yuki Shibuya <shibuya.yk@...s.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/14] KVM: x86: remove notifiers from PIT discard
 policy

2016-02-18 19:08+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 17/02/2016 20:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> +	/* pit->pit_state.lock was overloaded to prevent userspace from getting
>> +	 * an inconsistent state after running multiple KVM_REINJECT_CONTROL
>> +	 * ioctls in parallel.  Use a separate lock if that ioctl isn't rare.
>> +	 */
>> +	mutex_lock(&pit->pit_state.lock);
>> +	kvm_pit_set_reinject(pit, control->pit_reinject);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&pit->pit_state.lock);
> 
> ... so in patch 7 concurrent _writes_ of reinject are protected by the
> lock, but reads are done outside it (in pit_timer_fn).  WDYT about
> making reinject an atomic_t?

There was/is no harm in having reinject non-atomic.  This patch added
notifiers, which is the reason for re-introducing a mutex.

Userspace can (and SHOULDN'T) call this function multiple times,
concurrently, so the mutex prevents a situations where, e.g. only one
notifier is registered in the end.

I thought about really stupid stuff when doing this series ...