linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing: Prevent RCU EQS breakage in preemptirq events

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: <20190729102948.GY31381@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jul 2019 12:29:48 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Eiichi Tsukata <devel@...ukata.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Prevent RCU EQS breakage in preemptirq events

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 09:25:58PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 6:08 PM Eiichi Tsukata <devel@...ukata.com> wrote:

> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c b/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> > index 4d8e99fdbbbe..031b51cb94d0 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c
> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/ftrace.h>
> >  #include <linux/kprobes.h>
> > +#include <linux/context_tracking.h>
> >  #include "trace.h"
> >
> >  #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> > @@ -49,9 +50,14 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_off);
> >
> >  __visible void trace_hardirqs_on_caller(unsigned long caller_addr)
> >  {
> > +       enum ctx_state prev_state;
> > +
> >         if (this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
> > -               if (!in_nmi())
> > +               if (!in_nmi()) {
> > +                       prev_state = exception_enter();
> >                         trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(CALLER_ADDR0, caller_addr);
> > +                       exception_exit(prev_state);
> > +               }
> >                 tracer_hardirqs_on(CALLER_ADDR0, caller_addr);
> >                 this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 0);
> >         }
> 
> This seems a bit distressing.  Now we're going to do a whole bunch of
> context tracking transitions for each kernel entry.  Would a better
> fix me to change trace_hardirqs_on_caller to skip the trace event if
> the previous state was already IRQs on and, more importantly, to skip
> tracing IRQs off if IRQs were already off?  The x86 code is very
> careful to avoid ever having IRQs on and CONTEXT_USER at the same
> time.

I think they already (try to) do that; see 'tracing_irq_cpu'.