linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] intelrdt: resctrl: recommend locking for resctrlfs

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: <20161130222526.GA17750@amt.cnet>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:25:28 -0200
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intelrdt: resctrl: recommend locking for resctrlfs

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:05:31PM -0800, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 01:48:10PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > 
> > There is a locking problem between different applications
> > reading/writing to resctrlfs directory at the same time (read the patch
> > below for details).
> > 
> > Suggest a standard locking scheme for applications to use.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
> > 
> > --- Documentation/x86/intel_rdt_ui.txt.orig	2016-11-30 13:40:33.080233101 -0200
> > +++ Documentation/x86/intel_rdt_ui.txt	2016-11-30 13:45:01.253703259 -0200
> > @@ -212,3 +212,30 @@ Finally we move core 4-7 over to the new
> >  kernel and the tasks running there get 50% of the cache.
> >  
> >  # echo C0 > p0/cpus
> > +
> > +4) Locking between applications
> > +
> > +The allocation of an exclusive reservation
> > +of L3 cache involves:
> > +
> > +        1. read list of cbmmasks for each directory
> > +        2. find a contiguous set of bits in the global CBM bitmask
> > +          that is clear in any of the directory cbmmasks
> > +        3. create a new directory
> > +        4. set the bits found in step 2 to the new directory "schemata"
> > +           file
> 
> This is one example of why locking is needed. There are other scenarios
> that need the locking as well. For example, two applications scan each
> directory to find an empty/less loaded "tasks". Both of them find that
> directory p1 has empty "tasks" and write their own thread ids into the
> "tasks" in p1. Turns out the "tasks" in p1 will have crowded threads or
> workloads. A locking can solve this race scenario too.
> 
> As a user interface document, maybe we need a generic explanation why
> locking plus the example.

Well, agreed there are other races, but in this particular example
taking the file lock does not solve the "tasks" race: the contents of
the tasks file can change in face of fork.

So i've added your suggestion but can't use this example, if you have
another one you'd like to see added, please let me know... Replying with
V2.