linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm: introduce IRQ stacks

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: <CAK8P3a3s9JJpeBpH38utw9aA1VaEkcBqKEGtwcmoP1zS6xDj5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:59:48 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, v.narang@...sung.com,
        a.sahrawat@...sung.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Nathan Huckleberry <nhuck@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Jian Cai <caij2003@...il.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm: introduce IRQ stacks

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:57 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 01:45:42PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > > - define 'current' as 'this_cpu_read_stable(current_task);'
> > > > - convert to CONFIG_THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK
> >
> > That means we need to also code that up in assembly - remember, we
> > need to access thread_info from assembly code.
>
> Note also that there is a circular dependency involved. If you make
> thread_info accessible via per-cpu, then:
>
> #ifndef __my_cpu_offset
> #define __my_cpu_offset per_cpu_offset(raw_smp_processor_id())
> #endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT
> #define my_cpu_offset per_cpu_offset(smp_processor_id())
> #else
> #define my_cpu_offset __my_cpu_offset
> #endif

Right, I had missed the fallback path using asm-generic/percpu.h
that is used with CONFIG_SMP && CONFIG_CPU_V6
Almost everything either uses fixed percpu data (on UP builds)
or TPIDRPRW when building a v7-only or v6k/v7 kernel without
v6 support.

> smp_processor_id() ultimately ends up as raw_smp_processor_id() which
> is:
>
> #define raw_smp_processor_id() (current_thread_info()->cpu)
>
> and if current_thread_info() itself involves reading from per-cpu data,
> we end up recursing... infinitely.
>
> This is why I said in the other thread:
>
> "We don't do it because we don't have a separate register to be able
> to store the thread_info pointer, and copying that lump between the
> SVC and IRQ stack will add massively to IRQ latency, especially for
> older machines."

As discussed on IRC, I think it can still be done in one of these
ways, though admittedly none of them are perfect:

a) add runtime patching for __my_cpu_offset() when
  CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP is set. This adds complexity but avoids the
  fallback for for SMP&&CPU_V6. It possibly also speeds up
  running on single-cpu systems if the TPIDRPRW access adds
  any measurable runtime overhead compared to patching it out.

b) If irq stacks are left as a compile-time option, that could be
  made conditional on "!(SMP&&CPU_V6)". Presumably very
  few people still run kernels built that way any more. The only
  supported platforms are i.MX3, OMAP2 and Realview-eb, all of
  which are fairly uncommon these days and would usually
  run v6-only non-SMP kernels.

c) If we decide that we no longer care about that configuration
  at all, we could decide to just make SMP depend on !CPU_V6,
  and possibly kill off the entire SMP_ON_UP patching logic.
  I suspect we still want to keep SMP_ON_UP for performance
  reasons, but I don't know how significant they are to start with.

       Arnd