linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory_hotplug: Don't take the cpu_hotplug

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: <1569502946.5576.237.camel@lca.pw>
Date:   Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:02:26 -0400
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory_hotplug: Don't take the cpu_hotplug_lock

On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 13:52 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 26-09-19 07:19:27, Qian Cai wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > On Sep 26, 2019, at 3:26 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > OK, this is using for_each_online_cpu but why is this a problem? Have
> > > you checked what the code actually does? Let's say that online_pages is
> > > racing with cpu hotplug. A new CPU appears/disappears from the online
> > > mask while we are iterating it, right? Let's start with cpu offlining
> > > case. We have two choices, either the cpu is still visible and we update
> > > its local node configuration even though it will disappear shortly which
> > > is ok because we are not touching any data that disappears (it's all
> > > per-cpu). Case when the cpu is no longer there is not really
> > > interesting. For the online case we might miss a cpu but that should be
> > > tolerateable because that is not any different from triggering the
> > > online independently of the memory hotplug. So there has to be a hook
> > > from that code path as well. If there is none then this is buggy
> > > irrespective of the locking.
> > > 
> > > Makes sense?
> > 
> > This sounds to me requires lots of audits and testing. Also, someone who is more
> > familiar with CPU hotplug should review this patch.
> 
> Thomas is on the CC list.
> 
> > Personally, I am no fun of
> > operating on an incorrect CPU mask to begin with, things could go wrong really
> > quickly...
> 
> Do you have any specific arguments? Just think of cpu and memory
> hotplugs being independent operations. There is nothing really
> inherently binding them together. If the cpu_online_mask really needs a
> special treatment here then I would like to hear about that. Handwaving 
> doesn't really helps us.

That is why I said it needs CPU hotplug experts to confirm that things including
if CPU masks are tolerate to this kind of "abuse", or in-depth analysis of each 
calls sites that access CPU masks in both online_pages() and offline_pages() as
well as ideally, more testing data in those areas.

However, many kernel commits were merged with the expectations that people are
going to deal with the aftermath, so I am not going to insist.