linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen: make xen_qlock

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]

Date:   Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:38:11 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        x86@...nel.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, hpa@...or.com,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Waiman.Long@...com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen: make xen_qlock_wait() nestable

On 10/10/2018 14:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-10-10 at 14:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 09:16 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> -       /* If irq pending already clear it and return. */
>>>>> +       /* Guard against reentry. */
>>>>> +       local_irq_save(flags);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       /* If irq pending already clear it. */
>>>>>         if (xen_test_irq_pending(irq)) {
>>>>>                 xen_clear_irq_pending(irq);
>>>>> -               return;
>>>>> +       } else if (READ_ONCE(*byte) == val) {
>>>>> +               /* Block until irq becomes pending (or a spurious wakeup) */
>>>>> +               xen_poll_irq(irq);
>>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does this still allow other IRQs to wake it from xen_poll_irq()?
>>>>
>>>> In the case where process-context code is spinning for a lock without
>>>> disabling interrupts, we *should* allow interrupts to occur still...
>>>> does this?
>>>
>>> Yes. Look at it like idle HLT or WFI. You have to disable interrupt before
>>> checking the condition and then the hardware or in this case the hypervisor
>>> has to bring you back when an interrupt is raised.
>>>
>>> If that would not work then the check would be racy, because the interrupt
>>> could hit and be handled after the check and before going into
>>> HLT/WFI/hypercall and then the thing is out until the next interrupt comes
>>> along, which might be never.
>>
>> Right, but in this case we're calling into the hypervisor to poll for
>> one *specific* IRQ. Everything you say is true for that specific IRQ.
>>
>> My question is what happens to *other* IRQs. We want them, but are they
>> masked? I'm staring at the Xen do_poll() code and haven't quite worked
>> that out...
> 
> Ah, sorry. That of course has to come back like HLT/WFI for any interrupt,
> but I have no idea what the Xen HV is doing there.

The Xen HV is doing it right. It is blocking the vcpu in do_poll() and
any interrupt will unblock it.


Juergen