linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 00/14] Restartable Sequences

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: <CAKOZueu_7Ha_WXMyxqMEScXo1aHWr9qYRxqyb-Rpd4k1JP3xHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 02 May 2018 16:07:48 +0000
From:   Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, luto@...capital.net, davejwatson@...com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux@....linux.org.uk, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>, andi@...stfloor.org,
        cl@...ux.com, bmaurer@...com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        josh@...htriplett.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
        Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18 00/14] Restartable Sequences

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:03 AM Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:

> ----- On May 1, 2018, at 11:53 PM, Daniel Colascione dancol@...gle.com
wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > I think a small enhancement to rseq would let us build a perfect
userspace
> > mutex, one that spins on lock-acquire only when the lock owner is
running
> > and that sleeps otherwise, freeing userspace from both specifying ad-hoc
> > spin counts and from trying to detect situations in which spinning is
> > generally pointless.
> >
> > It'd work like this: in the per-thread rseq data structure, we'd
include a
> > description of a futex operation for the kernel would perform (in the
> > context of the preempted thread) upon preemption, immediately before
> > schedule(). If the futex operation itself sleeps, that's no problem: we
> > will have still accomplished our goal of running some other thread
instead
> > of the preempted thread.

> Hi Daniel,

> I agree that the problem you are aiming to solve is important. Let's see
> what prevents the proposed rseq implementation from doing what you
envision.

> The main issue here is touching userspace immediately before schedule().
> At that specific point, it's not possible to take a page fault. In the
proposed
> rseq implementation, we get away with it by raising a task struct flag,
and using
> it in a return to userspace notifier (where we can actually take a
fault), where
> we touch the userspace TLS area.

> If we can find a way to solve this limitation, then the rest of your
design
> makes sense to me.

Thanks for taking a look!

Why couldn't we take a page fault just before schedule? The reason we can't
take a page fault in atomic context is that doing so might call schedule.
Here, we're about to call schedule _anyway_, so what harm does it do to
call something that might call schedule? If we schedule via that call, we
can skip the manual schedule we were going to perform.