linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] locking/qspinlock/x86: Avoid test-and-set when PV

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: <CANRm+CwVaE70_Aod8s6hef_rNsRXovkfisbCj6EABCzOUR6bOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:04:48 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Matt Wilson <msw@...zon.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Jan H . Schoenherr" <jschoenh@...zon.de>,
        Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] locking/qspinlock/x86: Avoid test-and-set when
 PV_DEDICATED is set

2017-11-10 15:59 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:07:56AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>
>> >> Also, you should not put cpumask_t on stack, that's 'broken'.
>>
>> Thanks pointing out this. I found a useful comments in arch/x86/kernel/irq.c:
>>
>> /* These two declarations are only used in check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable()
>>  * below, which is protected by stop_machine().  Putting them on the stack
>>  * results in a stack frame overflow.  Dynamically allocating could result in a
>>  * failure so declare these two cpumasks as global.
>>  */
>> static struct cpumask affinity_new, online_new;
>
> That code no longer exists.. Also not entirely sure how it would be
> helpful.
>
> What you probably want to do is have a per-cpu cpumask, since
> flush_tlb_others() is called with preemption disabled. But you probably
> don't want an unconditionally allocated one, since most kernels will not
> in fact be PV.
>
> So you'll want something like:
>
>         static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, __pv_tlb_mask);
>
> And then you need something like:
>
>         for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>                 zalloc_cpumask_var_node(per_cpu_ptr(&__pb_tlb_mask, cpu),
>                                         GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu));
>         }
>
> before you set the pv-op or so.

Thanks Peterz, :) I will have a try.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li