linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86 / CPU: Avoid unnecessary IPIs in arch_freq_get_on

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:00:56 +0800
From:   WANG Chao <chao.wang@...oud.cn>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 / CPU: Avoid unnecessary IPIs in
 arch_freq_get_on_cpu()

On 11/13/17 at 02:15P, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> Even though aperfmperf_snapshot_khz() caches the samples.khz value
> to return if called again in a sufficiently short time, its caller,
> arch_freq_get_on_cpu(), still uses smp_call_function_single() to run
> it which may allow user space to trigger an IPI storm by reading from
> the scaling_cur_freq cpufreq sysfs file in a tight loop.
> 
> To avoid that, move the decision on whether or not to return the
> cached samples.khz value to arch_freq_get_on_cpu().
> 
> Fixes: 4815d3c56d1e (cpufreq: x86: Make scaling_cur_freq behave more as expected)
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: WANG Chao <chao.wang@...oud.cn>

> ---
> 
> This change was part of commit 941f5f0f6ef5 (x86: CPU: Fix up "cpu MHz" in
> /proc/cpuinfo), but it was not the reason for the revert and it remains
> applicable.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/Makefile     |    2 +-
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c |   11 +++++++----
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c       |    4 +++-
>  3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> +++ linux-pm/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/aperfmperf.c
> @@ -42,10 +42,6 @@ static void aperfmperf_snapshot_khz(void
>  	s64 time_delta = ktime_ms_delta(now, s->time);
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	/* Don't bother re-computing within the cache threshold time. */
> -	if (time_delta < APERFMPERF_CACHE_THRESHOLD_MS)
> -		return;
> -
>  	local_irq_save(flags);
>  	rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_APERF, aperf);
>  	rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MPERF, mperf);
> @@ -74,6 +70,7 @@ static void aperfmperf_snapshot_khz(void
>  
>  unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
>  {
> +	s64 time_delta;
>  	unsigned int khz;
>  
>  	if (!cpu_khz)
> @@ -82,6 +79,12 @@ unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cp
>  	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF))
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	/* Don't bother re-computing within the cache threshold time. */
> +	time_delta = ktime_ms_delta(ktime_get(), per_cpu(samples.time, cpu));
> +	khz = per_cpu(samples.khz, cpu);
> +	if (khz && time_delta < APERFMPERF_CACHE_THRESHOLD_MS)
> +		return khz;
> +
>  	smp_call_function_single(cpu, aperfmperf_snapshot_khz, NULL, 1);
>  	khz = per_cpu(samples.khz, cpu);
>  	if (khz)
>