linux-kernel - Re: task isolation discussion at Linux Plumbers

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]

Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:52:13 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Francis Giraldeau <francis.giraldeau@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: task isolation discussion at Linux Plumbers

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:44:02PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Are you planning on changing rcu_nmi_enter()?  It would make it easier
> to figure out how they interact if I could see the code.

It already calls rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit(), courtesy of the earlier
consolidation patches.

> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index dbf20b058f48..342c8ee402d6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> 
> 
> >  /*
> > @@ -305,17 +318,22 @@ static void rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter(void)
> >  static void rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit(void)
> >  {
> >         struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
> > +       int seq;
> >
> >         /*
> > -        * CPUs seeing atomic_inc() must see prior idle sojourns,
> > +        * CPUs seeing atomic_inc_return() must see prior idle sojourns,
> >          * and we also must force ordering with the next RCU read-side
> >          * critical section.
> >          */
> > -       smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* See above. */
> > -       atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks);
> > -       smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* See above. */
> > +       seq = atomic_inc_return(&rdtp->dynticks);
> >         WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG) &&
> > -                    !(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
> > +                    !(seq & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR));
> 
> I think there's still a race here.  Suppose we're running this code on
> cpu n and...
> 
> > +       if (seq & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK) {
> > +               rcu_eqs_special_exit();
> > +               /* Prefer duplicate flushes to losing a flush. */
> > +               smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* NMI safety. */
> 
> ... another CPU changes the page tables and calls rcu_eqs_special_set(n) here.

But then rcu_eqs_special_set() will return false because we already
exited the extended quiescent state at the atomic_inc_return() above.

That should tell the caller to send an IPI.

> That CPU expects that we will flush prior to continuing, but we won't.
> Admittedly it's highly unlikely that any stale TLB entries would be
> created yet, but nothing rules it out.

That said, 0day is having some heartburn from this, so I must have broken
something somewhere.  My own tests of course complete just fine...

> > +               atomic_and(~RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK, &rdtp->dynticks);
> > +       }
> 
> Maybe the way to handle it is something like:
> 
> this_cpu_write(rcu_nmi_needs_eqs_special, 1);
> barrier();
> 
> /* NMI here will call rcu_eqs_special_exit() regardless of the value
> in dynticks */
> 
> atomic_and(...);
> smp_mb__after_atomic();
> rcu_eqs_special_exit();
> 
> barrier();
> this_cpu_write(rcu_nmi_needs_eqs_special, 0);
> 
> 
> Then rcu_nmi_enter() would call rcu_eqs_special_exit() if the dynticks
> bit is set *or* rcu_nmi_needs_eqs_special is set.
> 
> Does that make sense?

I believe that rcu_eqs_special_set() returning false covers this, but
could easily be missing something.

							Thanx, Paul