linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc/rtas: Implement reentrant rtas call

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:   Fri, 15 May 2020 17:30:09 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@...il.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc/rtas: Implement reentrant rtas call

Excerpts from Leonardo Bras's message of May 15, 2020 9:51 am:
> Implement rtas_call_reentrant() for reentrant rtas-calls:
> "ibm,int-on", "ibm,int-off",ibm,get-xive" and  "ibm,set-xive".
> 
> On LoPAPR Version 1.1 (March 24, 2016), from 7.3.10.1 to 7.3.10.4,
> items 2 and 3 say:
> 
> 2 - For the PowerPC External Interrupt option: The * call must be
> reentrant to the number of processors on the platform.
> 3 - For the PowerPC External Interrupt option: The * argument call
> buffer for each simultaneous call must be physically unique.
> 
> So, these rtas-calls can be called in a lockless way, if using
> a different buffer for each cpu doing such rtas call.

What about rtas_call_unlocked? Do the callers need to take the rtas 
lock?

Machine checks must call ibm,nmi-interlock too, which we really don't 
want to take a lock for either. Hopefully that's in a class of its own
and we can essentially ignore with respect to other rtas calls.

The spec is pretty vague too :(

"The ibm,get-xive call must be reentrant to the number of processors on 
the platform."

This suggests ibm,get-xive can be called concurrently by multiple
processors. It doesn't say anything about being re-entrant against any 
of the other re-entrant calls. Maybe that could be reasonably assumed,
but I don't know if it's reasonable to assume it can be called 
concurrently with a *non-reentrant* call, is it?

> For this, it was suggested to add the buffer (struct rtas_args)
> in the PACA struct, so each cpu can have it's own buffer.

You can't do this, paca is not limited to RTAS_INSTANTIATE_MAX.
Which is good, because I didn't want you to add another 88 bytes to the 
paca :) Can you make it a pointer and allocate it separately? Check
the slb_shadow allocation, you could use a similar pattern.

The other option would be to have just one more rtas args, and have the 
crashing CPU always that. That would skirt the re-entrancy issue -- the
concurrency is only ever a last resort. Would be a bit tricker though.

Thanks,
Nick