linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

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:   Fri, 23 Nov 2018 11:14:44 +0100
From:   Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>
To:     "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm, notifier: Catch sleeping/blocking for !blockable

Am 23.11.18 um 09:46 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 06:55:17PM +0000, Koenig, Christian wrote:
>> Am 22.11.18 um 17:51 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a
>>> possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't
>>> catch it.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure whether this is the best way to make sure all the
>>> might_sleep() callsites trigger, and it's a bit ugly in the code flow.
>>> But it gets the job done.
>>>
>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>>> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
>>> Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@....com>
>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
>>> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@...hat.com>
>>> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
>>> ---
>>>    mm/mmu_notifier.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
>>> index 59e102589a25..4d282cfb296e 100644
>>> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
>>> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
>>> @@ -185,7 +185,13 @@ int __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>    	id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
>>>    	hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(mn, &mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list, hlist) {
>>>    		if (mn->ops->invalidate_range_start) {
>>> -			int _ret = mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, mm, start, end, blockable);
>>> +			int _ret;
>>> +
>>> +			if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) && !blockable)
>>> +				preempt_disable();
>>> +			_ret = mn->ops->invalidate_range_start(mn, mm, start, end, blockable);
>>> +			if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) && !blockable)
>>> +				preempt_enable();
>> Just for the sake of better documenting this how about adding this to
>> include/linux/kernel.h right next to might_sleep():
>>
>> #define disallow_sleeping_if(cond)    for((cond) ? preempt_disable() :
>> (void)0; (cond); preempt_disable())
>>
>> (Just from the back of my head, might contain peanuts and/or hints of
>> errors).
> I think these magic for blocks aren't used in the kernel. goto breaks
> them, and we use goto a lot.

Yeah, good argument.

> I think a disallow/allow_sleep() pair with
> the conditional preept_disable/enable() calls would be nice though. I can
> do that if the overall idea sticks.

Sounds like a good idea to me as well.

Christian.

> -Daniel
>
>> Christian.
>>
>>>    			if (_ret) {
>>>    				pr_info("%pS callback failed with %d in %sblockable context.\n",
>>>    						mn->ops->invalidate_range_start, _ret,