linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kcov: properly check if we are in an interrupt

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: <dd6202ff-3874-38dc-20e0-97d495dc40c7@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:20:46 +0200
From:   Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcov: properly check if we are in an interrupt

On 09/27/2016 09:50 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect there is a bunch of places that use in_interrupt(), but mean
>>> the same as KCOV wants -- am I in interrupt? and not am I in interrupt
>>> context or in normal task context but inside local_bh_disable(). For
>>> example, why does fput handles closure asynchronously if the task
>>> called local_bh_disable?
>>
>> Agreed, but it would mean auditing all in_interrupt()/irq_count() users.
>
>
> I don't think this means auditing all users. We are not making things
> worse by introduction of a new predicate.
> It would be nice to look at some uses in core code, but the only place
> with observed harm is KCOV.
>
> Any naming suggestions? Other than really_in_interrupt or
> in_interrupt_and_not_in_bh_disabled?
>

Your patch was:

-	if (!t || in_interrupt())
+	if (!t || (preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET
+							| NMI_MASK)))

But look at the definitions:

#define irq_count()     (preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK \
                                  | NMI_MASK))
#define in_interrupt()          (irq_count())

So isn't the patch a no-op to start with?


Vegard