linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Add irq spillover warning

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]

Message-ID: <20190716160745.GB1498@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:07:45 -0400
From:   Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, djuran@...hat.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Add irq spillover warning

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 05:57:31PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Neil,
> 
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019, Neil Horman wrote:
> 
> > On Intel hardware, cpus are limited in the number of irqs they can
> > have affined to them (currently 240), based on section 10.5.2 of:
> > https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-software-developer-vol-3a-part-1-manual.pdf
> 
> That reference is really not useful to explain the problem and the number
> of vectors is neither. Please explain the conceptual issue.
>  
You seem to have already done that below.  Not really sure what more you are
asking for here.

> > If a cpu has more than this number of interrupts affined to it, they
> > will spill over to other cpus, which potentially may be outside of their
> > affinity mask.
> 
> Spill over?
> 
> The kernel decides to pick a vector on a CPU outside of the affinity when
> it runs out of vectors on the CPUs in the affinity mask.
> 
Yes.

> Please explain issues technically correct.
> 
I don't know what you mean by this.  I explained it above, and you clearly
understood it.

> > Given that this might cause unexpected behavior on
> > performance sensitive systems, warn the user should this condition occur
> > so that corrective action can be taken
> 
> > @@ -244,6 +244,14 @@ __visible unsigned int __irq_entry do_IRQ(struct pt_regs *regs)
> 
> Why on earth warn in the interrupt delivery hotpath? Just because it's the
> place which really needs extra instructions and extra cache lines on
> performance sensitive systems, right?
> 
Because theres already a check of the same variety in do_IRQ, but if the
information is available outside the hotpath, I was unaware, and am happy to
update this patch to refelct that.

> The fact that the kernel ran out of vectors for the CPUs in the affinity
> mask is already known when the vector is allocated in activate_reserved().
> 
> So there is an obvious place to put such a warning and it's certainly not
> do_IRQ().
> 
Sure

Thanks
Neil

> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
>