linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/14] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems

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: <20201119161127.GQ3121392@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 17:11:27 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/14] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32
 systems

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 09:37:05AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

> The aim of this series is to allow 32-bit ARM applications to run on
> arm64 SoCs where not all of the CPUs support the 32-bit instruction set.
> 
> There are some major changes in v3:
> 
>   * Add some scheduler hooks for restricting a task's affinity mask
>   * Implement these hooks for arm64 so that we can avoid 32-bit tasks
>     running on 64-bit-only cores
>   * Restrict affinity mask of 32-bit tasks on execve()
>   * Prevent hot-unplug of all 32-bit CPUs if we have a mismatched system
>   * Ensure 32-bit EL0 cpumask is zero-initialised (oops)
> 
> It's worth mentioning that this approach goes directly against my
> initial proposal for punting the affinity management to userspace,
> because it turns out that doesn't really work. There are cases where the
> kernel has to muck with the affinity mask explicitly, such as execve(),
> CPU hotplug and cpuset balancing. Ensuring that these don't lead to
> random SIGKILLs as far as userspace is concerned means avoiding any

Mooo, I thought we were okay with that... Use does stupid, user gets
SIGKIL. What changed?

> 64-bit-only CPUs appearing in the affinity mask for a 32-bit task, at
> which point it's easier just to handle everything in the kernel anyway.