linux-kernel - Re: Some -serious- BPF-related litmus tests

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: <20200525170257.GA325280@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 19:02:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, parri.andrea@...il.com,
        will@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com,
        dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr,
        akiyks@...il.com, dlustig@...dia.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        "andrii.nakryiko@...il.com" <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Some -serious- BPF-related litmus tests

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 08:47:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:25:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > That is; how can you use a spinlock on the producer side at all?
> 
> So even trylock is now forbidden in NMI handlers?  If so, why?

The litmus tests don't have trylock.

But you made me look at the actual patch:

+static void *__bpf_ringbuf_reserve(struct bpf_ringbuf *rb, u64 size)
+{
+	unsigned long cons_pos, prod_pos, new_prod_pos, flags;
+	u32 len, pg_off;
+	struct bpf_ringbuf_hdr *hdr;
+
+	if (unlikely(size > RINGBUF_MAX_RECORD_SZ))
+		return NULL;
+
+	len = round_up(size + BPF_RINGBUF_HDR_SZ, 8);
+	cons_pos = smp_load_acquire(&rb->consumer_pos);
+
+	if (in_nmi()) {
+		if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&rb->spinlock, flags))
+			return NULL;
+	} else {
+		spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->spinlock, flags);
+	}

And that is of course utter crap. That's like saying you don't care
about your NMI data.