[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180703181028.GA2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 20:10:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, gor@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.18] rseq: use __u64 for rseq_cs fields,
validate user inputs
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 10:59:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:49 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I can simply document that loads/stores from/to all struct rseq fields
> > > should be thread-local then ?
> >
> > I'm not sure that covers things sufficiently. You really want the
> > userspace load/stores to be single instructions.
>
> Actually, I think we should try very hard to limit even that to _just_
> the rseq pointer itself.
> So I'd suggest that the only part we aim to have any "atomic" behavior
> at all is for the individual fields in "struct rseq" itself. So the
> cpu id and the base pointer and the flags. And even they are
> thread-local, so the atomicity is not about the kernel, but about user
> space needing to read and update them in word-sized chunks.
>
> End result: absolutely nothing is atomic for the kernel.
Yes, agreed, that is what I meant but very poorly expressed. Only the
rseq bits themselves need this single-copy atomic stuff -- for
userspace.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists