linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/3] preempt_tracer: Disable IRQ while starting/stopping due to a preempt

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, 29 May 2019 10:33:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, williams@...hat.com,
        daniel@...stot.me, "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@...il.com>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] preempt_tracer: Disable IRQ while starting/stopping
 due to a preempt_counter change

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 05:16:23PM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> The preempt_disable/enable tracepoint only traces in the disable <-> enable
> case, which is correct. But think about this case:
> 
> ---------------------------- %< ------------------------------
> 	THREAD					IRQ
> 	   |					 |
> preempt_disable() {
>     __preempt_count_add(1)
> 	------->	    smp_apic_timer_interrupt() {
> 				preempt_disable()
> 				    do not trace (preempt count >= 1)
> 				    ....
> 				preempt_enable()
> 				    do not trace (preempt count >= 1)
> 			    }
>     trace_preempt_disable();
> }
> ---------------------------- >% ------------------------------
> 
> The tracepoint will be skipped.

.... for the IRQ. But IRQs are not preemptible anyway, so what the
problem?

> To avoid skipping the trace, the change in the counter should be "atomic"
> with the start/stop, w.r.t the interrupts.
> 
> Disable interrupts while the adding/starting stopping/subtracting.

> +static inline void preempt_add_start_latency(int val)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> +	__preempt_count_add(val);
> +	preempt_latency_start(val);
> +	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}

> +static inline void preempt_sub_stop_latency(int val)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> +	preempt_latency_stop(val);
> +	__preempt_count_sub(val);
> +	raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}

That is hideously expensive :/