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  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:   Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:01:11 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc:     Will Deacon <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Andi Kleen <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Boqun Feng <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Dave Watson <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        linux-api <>,
        Paul Turner <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Russell King <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Andrew Hunter <>,
        Chris Lameter <>, Ben Maurer <>,
        rostedt <>,
        Josh Triplett <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Michael Kerrisk <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.15 v12 00/22] Restartable sequences and CPU op

----- On Nov 23, 2017, at 5:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So what exactly is the problem of leaving out the whole cpu_opv thing
>> >> for now? Pure rseq is usable -- albeit a bit cumbersome without
>> >> additional debugger support.
>> > 
>> > Drive-by "ack" to that. I'd really like a working rseq implementation in
>> > mainline, but I don't much care for another interpreter.
>> Considering the arm 64 use-case of reading PMU counters from user-space
>> using rseq to prevent migration, I understand that you're lucky enough to
>> already have a system call at your disposal that can perform the slow-path
>> in case of single-stepping.
>> So yes, your particular case is already covered, but unfortunately that's
>> not the same situation for other use-cases that have been expressed.
> If we have users of rseq which can do without the other muck, then what's
> the reason not to support it?
> The sysops thing can be sorted out on top and the use cases which need both
> will have to test for both syscalls being available anyway.

I'm currently making sure CONFIG_RSEQ selects both CONFIG_CPU_OPV and
CONFIG_MEMBARRIER, so the user-space fast-paths don't end up with
various ways of doing the fallback/single-stepping/memory barrier handling
depending on whether the kernel support each of those individually.
So first of all, it reduces complexity from a user-space perspective.

Moreover, with a single already needed cpu_id vs cpu_id_start field comparison
in the rseq fast-path, user-space knows that it can rely on having rseq,
cpu_opv, and membarrier. Without this guarantee, user-space would have to
detect individually whether each of those system calls is available, and
test flags on the fast-path, for additional overhead.

Those are my main concerns about pushing an incomplete solution at this



Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists