linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/mm/pat: Disable preemption around __flush_tlb

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:17:18 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Sebastian Andrzej Siewior' <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/mm/pat: Disable preemption around
 __flush_tlb_all()

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:54:38AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > >  	 * We should perform an IPI and flush all tlbs,
> > >  	 * but that can deadlock->flush only current cpu:
> > >  	 */
> > > +	preempt_disable();
> > >  	__flush_tlb_all();
> > > +	preempt_enable();
> > 
> > Can it make any sense to flush the tlb with preemption enabled?
> > Surely preemption must be disabled over something else as well?
> 
> This code is fishy anyway, for only doing that local invalidate.
> 
> Ideally we'd never ever merge anything that only does local invalidates,
> on a global address space, that's just broken.

A little bit late to lament about that.

So should we just replace it with cpa_flush_all() ?

Thanks,

	tglx