linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option

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: <20170725185320.uis4hxqaqlx7y7gp@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:53:20 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 4/5] sys_membarrier: Add expedited option

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:17:01AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > munmap() TLB invalidate is limited to those CPUs that actually ran
> > threads of their process, while this is machine wide.
> 
> Or those CPUs running threads of any process mapping the underlying file
> or whatever.

That doesn't sound right. munmap() of a shared file only invalidates
this process's map of it.

Swapping a file page otoh will indeed touch the union of cpumasks over
all processes mapping that page.

> And in either case, this can span the whole machine.  Plus
> there are a number of other ways for users to do on-demand full-system
> IPIs, including any number of ways to wake up large numbers of CPUs,
> including from unrelated processes.

Which are those? I thought we significantly reduced those with the nohz
full work. Most IPI uses now first check if a CPU actually needs the IPI
before sending it IIRC.

> But I do plan to add another alternative that is limited to threads of
> the running process.  I will be carrying both versions to enable those
> who have been bugging me about this to do testing.

Sending IPIs to mm_cpumask() might be better than expedited, but I'm
still hesitant. Just because people want it doesn't mean its a good
idea. We need to weight this against the potential for abuse.

People want userspace preempt disable, no matter how hard they want it,
they're not getting it because its a completely crap idea.