linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next v2 2/3] printk: change @clear_seq to atomic64

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: <20201209110042.GW3021@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 12:00:42 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 2/3] printk: change @clear_seq to atomic64_t

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 07:46:13PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/12/09 18:22), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > 
> > > Please put on your eye cancer gear and inspect the atomic implementation
> > > of PA-RISC, Sparc32, feh, I forgot who else.
> > > 
> > > Those SMP capable architectures are gifted with just one XCHG like
> > > atomic instruction :/ Anyway, as said in the other email, they also
> > > don't have NMIs so it mostly works.
> 
> PeterZ, thanks for the pointers!
> 
> 
> > Hmm, wow. OK, I definitely want to look further.
> > 
> > When some CONFIG_DEBUG_FOO_BAR code wants to pr_err from prb->atomic_op
> > on those archs then we deadlock in printk once again?
> 
> E.g. arch/sparc/lib/atomic32.c
> 
> 	spinlock_t __atomic_hash[ATOMIC_HASH_SIZE];
> 	atomic_foo()
> 	{
> 		spin_lock_irqsave(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags)
> 		...
> 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags);
> 	}
> 
> So another potential re-entry path is
> 
> 	atomic_foo()
> 	 spin_lock_irqsave(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags)
> 	  printk()
> 	   prb()
> 	    atomic_foo()
> 	     spin_lock_irqsave(ATOMIC_HASH(v), flags)
> 
> which can deadlock, in theory, if both atomics HASH to the same
> key (same spin_lock).

Yep, but see the 'mostly' in the 'they mostly work'. Given the
limitiations of these architectures there's really only so much you can
do.