| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20201027190919.GO2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 20:09:19 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/wait: Add add_wait_queue_priority()
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39:43PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
>
> This allows an exclusive wait_queue_entry to be added at the head of the
> queue, instead of the tail as normal. Thus, it gets to consume events
> first without allowing non-exclusive waiters to be woken at all.
>
> The (first) intended use is for KVM IRQFD, which currently has
Do you have more? You could easily special case this inside the KVM
code.
I don't _think_ the other users of __add_wait_queue() will mind the
extra branch, but what do I know.
> inconsistent behaviour depending on whether posted interrupts are
> available or not. If they are, KVM will bypass the eventfd completely
> and deliver interrupts directly to the appropriate vCPU. If not, events
> are delivered through the eventfd and userspace will receive them when
> polling on the eventfd.
>
> By using add_wait_queue_priority(), KVM will be able to consistently
> consume events within the kernel without accidentally exposing them
> to userspace when they're supposed to be bypassed. This, in turn, means
> that userspace doesn't have to jump through hoops to avoid listening
> on the erroneously noisy eventfd and injecting duplicate interrupts.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
> ---
> include/linux/wait.h | 12 +++++++++++-
> kernel/sched/wait.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/wait.h b/include/linux/wait.h
> index 27fb99cfeb02..fe10e8570a52 100644
> --- a/include/linux/wait.h
> +++ b/include/linux/wait.h
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ int default_wake_function(struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, unsigned mode, int
> #define WQ_FLAG_BOOKMARK 0x04
> #define WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM 0x08
> #define WQ_FLAG_DONE 0x10
> +#define WQ_FLAG_PRIORITY 0x20
>
> /*
> * A single wait-queue entry structure:
> @@ -164,11 +165,20 @@ static inline bool wq_has_sleeper(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head)
>
> extern void add_wait_queue(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry);
> extern void add_wait_queue_exclusive(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry);
> +extern void add_wait_queue_priority(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry);
> extern void remove_wait_queue(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry);
>
> static inline void __add_wait_queue(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
> {
> - list_add(&wq_entry->entry, &wq_head->head);
> + struct list_head *head = &wq_head->head;
> + struct wait_queue_entry *wq;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(wq, &wq_head->head, entry) {
> + if (!(wq->flags & WQ_FLAG_PRIORITY))
> + break;
> + head = &wq->entry;
> + }
> + list_add(&wq_entry->entry, head);
> }
So you're adding the PRIORITY things to the head of the list and need
the PRIORITY flag to keep them in FIFO order there, right?
While looking at this I found that weird __add_wait_queue_exclusive()
which is used by fs/eventpoll.c and does something similar, except it
doesn't keep the FIFO order.
The Changelog doesn't state how important this property is to you.
> /*
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/wait.c b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> index 01f5d3020589..183cc6ae68a6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> @@ -37,6 +37,17 @@ void add_wait_queue_exclusive(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(add_wait_queue_exclusive);
>
> +void add_wait_queue_priority(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + wq_entry->flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE | WQ_FLAG_PRIORITY;
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
> + __add_wait_queue(wq_head, wq_entry);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(add_wait_queue_priority);
> +
> void remove_wait_queue(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> @@ -57,7 +68,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(remove_wait_queue);
> /*
> * The core wakeup function. Non-exclusive wakeups (nr_exclusive == 0) just
> * wake everything up. If it's an exclusive wakeup (nr_exclusive == small +ve
> - * number) then we wake all the non-exclusive tasks and one exclusive task.
> + * number) then we wake that number of exclusive tasks, and potentially all
> + * the non-exclusive tasks. Normally, exclusive tasks will be at the end of
> + * the list and any non-exclusive tasks will be woken first. A priority task
> + * may be at the head of the list, and can consume the event without any other
> + * tasks being woken.
> *
> * There are circumstances in which we can try to wake a task which has already
> * started to run but is not in state TASK_RUNNING. try_to_wake_up() returns
> --
> 2.26.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists