linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] ppc/crash: Skip spinlocks during crash

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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 11:12:45 -0300
From:   Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Enrico Weigelt <info@...ux.net>,
        Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ppc/crash: Skip spinlocks during crash

Hello Peter, 

On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 13:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>  		do {
> > > +			if (unlikely(crash_skip_spinlock))
> > > +				return;
> > 
> > You are adding a test that reads a global var in the middle of a so hot path
> > ? That must kill performance. Can we do different ?
> 
> This; adding code to a super hot patch like this for an exceptional case
> like the crash handling seems like a very very bad trade to me.
> 
> One possible solution is to simply write 0 to the affected spinlocks
> after sending the NMI IPI thing, no?

Yes, I agree.
I suggested this on a comment in v2 of this patch:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1262468/



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)