linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irqchip/jcore: fix lost per-cpu interrupts

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: <20161012221927.GR19318@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:19:27 -0400
From:   Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/jcore: fix lost per-cpu interrupts

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 01:34:17PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:35:43PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:18:02AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 09:23:58PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 01:03:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > My preference would just be to keep the branch, but with your improved
> > > > > > version that doesn't need a function call:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	irqd_is_per_cpu(irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While there is some overhead testing this condition every time, I can
> > > > > > probably come up with several better places to look for a ~10 cycle
> > > > > > improvement in the irq code path without imposing new requirements on
> > > > > > the DT bindings.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fair enough. Your call.
> > > > >  
> > > > > > As noted in my followup to the clocksource stall thread, there's also
> > > > > > a possibility that it might make sense to consider the current
> > > > > > behavior of having non-percpu irqs bound to a particular cpu as part
> > > > > > of what's required by the compatible tag, in which case
> > > > > > handle_percpu_irq or something similar/equivalent might be suitable
> > > > > > for both the percpu and non-percpu cases. I don't understand the irq
> > > > > > subsystem well enough to insist on that but I think it's worth
> > > > > > consideration since it looks like it would improve performance of
> > > > > > non-percpu interrupts a bit.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, you can use handle_percpu_irq() for your device interrupts if you
> > > > > guarantee at the hardware level that there is no reentrancy. Once you make
> > > > > the hardware capable of delivering them on either core the picture changes.
> > > > 
> > > > One more concern here -- I see that handle_simple_irq is handling the
> > > > soft-disable / IRQS_PENDING flag behavior, and irq_check_poll stuff
> > > > that's perhaps important too. Since soft-disable is all we have
> > > > (there's no hard-disable of interrupts), is this a problem? In other
> > > > words, can drivers have an expectation of not receiving interrupts
> > > > when the irq is disabled? I would think anything compatible with irq
> > > > sharing can't have such an expectation, but perhaps the kernel needs
> > > > disabling internally for synchronization at module-unload time or
> > > > similar cases?
> > > 
> > > Sure. A driver would be surprised getting an interrupt when it is disabled,
> > > but with your exceptionally well thought out interrupt controller a pending
> > > (level) interrupt which is not handled will be reraised forever and just
> > > hard lock the machine.
> > 
> > If you want to criticize the interrupt controller design (not my work
> > or under my control) for limitations in the type of hardware that can
> > be hooked up to it, that's okay -- this kind of input will actually be
> > useful for designing the next iteration of it -- but I don't think
> > this specific possibility is a concern.
> 
> Well, if this scenario does happen, the machine will likely either lock
> up silently and hard, give you RCU CPU stall warning messages, or give
> you soft-lockup messages.

The same situation can happen with badly-behaved hardware under
software interrupt control too if it keeps generating interrupts
rapidly (more quickly than the cpu can handle them), unless the kernel
has some kind of framework for disabling the interrupt and only
reenabling it later via a timer. It's equivalent to a realtime-prio
process failing to block/sleep to give lower-priority processes a
chance to run.

Rich