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  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:   Sat, 07 Mar 2020 20:18:30 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:     LKML <>, X86 ML <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>, KVM <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86/kvm: Sanitize kvm_async_pf_task_wait()

Andy Lutomirski <> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 7:10 AM Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 2:01 AM Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
>> >
>> > Andy Lutomirski <> writes:
>> Now I'm confused again.  Your patch is very careful not to schedule if
>> we're in an RCU read-side critical section, but the regular preemption
>> code (preempt_schedule_irq, etc) seems to be willing to schedule
>> inside an RCU read-side critical section.  Why is the latter okay but
>> not the async pf case?
> I read more docs.  I guess the relevant situation is
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_CPU, in which case it is legal to preempt an RCU
> read-side critical section and obviously legal to put the whole CPU to
> sleep, but it's illegal to explicitly block in an RCU read-side
> critical section.  So I have a question for Paul: is it, in fact,
> entirely illegal to block or merely illegal to block for an
> excessively long time, e.g. waiting for user space or network traffic?

Two issues here:

    - excessive blocking time

    - entering idle with an RCU read side critical section blocking

>  In this situation, we cannot make progress until the host says we
> can, so we are, in effect, blocking until the host tells us to stop
> blocking.  Regardless, I agree that turning IRQs on is reasonable, and
> allowing those IRQs to preempt us is reasonable.
> As it stands in your patch, the situation is rather odd: we'll run
> another task if that task *preempts* us (e.g. we block long enough to
> run out of our time slice), but we won't run another task if we aren't
> preempted.  This seems bizarre.

Yes, it looks odd. We could do:

	while (!page_arrived()) {
		if (preempt_count() == 1 && this_cpu_runnable_tasks() > 1) {
		} else {

Don't know if it's worth the trouble. But that's not the problem :)

> I think this issue still stands and is actually a fairly easy race to hit.
> IRQ happens and we get preempted
> another task runs and gets the #PF "async pf wakeup" event
> reschedule, back to original task

See the other mail about STI :)



Powered by blists - more mailing lists