linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/events: Mask a moving irq

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

Message-ID: <56EAEE36.6050804@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:49:42 -0400
From:	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Cc:	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/events: Mask a moving irq

On 03/17/2016 01:29 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 17/03/16 16:53, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 03/17/2016 12:03 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> On 17/03/16 12:45, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> Moving an unmasked irq may result in irq handler being invoked on both
>>>> source and target CPUs.
>>>>
>>>> With 2-level this can happen as follows:
>>>>
>>>> On source CPU:
>>>>           evtchn_2l_handle_events() ->
>>>>               generic_handle_irq() ->
>>>>                   handle_edge_irq() ->
>>>>                      eoi_pirq():
>>>>                          irq_move_irq(data);
>>>>
>>>>                          /***** WE ARE HERE *****/
>>>>
>>>>                          if (VALID_EVTCHN(evtchn))
>>>>                              clear_evtchn(evtchn);
>>>>
>>>> If at this moment target processor is handling an unrelated event in
>>>> evtchn_2l_handle_events()'s loop it may pick up our event since target's
>>>> cpu_evtchn_mask claims that this event belongs to it *and* the event is
>>>> unmasked and still pending. At the same time, source CPU will continue
>>>> executing its own handle_edge_irq().
>>>>
>>>> With FIFO interrupt the scenario is similar: irq_move_irq() may result
>>>> in a EVTCHNOP_unmask hypercall which, in turn, may make the event
>>>> pending on the target CPU.
>>>>
>>>> We can avoid this situation by moving and clearing the event while
>>>> keeping event masked.
>>> Can you do:
>>>
>>>      if (unlikely(irqd_is_setaffinity_pending(data))) {
>>>          masked = test_and_set_mask()
>>>
>>>          clear_evtchn()
>>>          irq_move_masked_irq()
>> I did think about this but then I wasn't sure whether this might open
>> some other window for things to sneak in. It shouldn't but these things
>> are rather subtle so I'd rather leave the order of how operations are
>> done unchanged.
> This is the order your patch has though.  I'm confused.

Ugh, sorry --- I misread what you wrote, I thought you wanted to clear 
before masking. Which wouldn't make any sense.

So yes, what you are suggesting is better.

-borsi