linux-kernel - Re: tick/sched: Make jiffies update quick check more robust

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: <20201211212847.GA595642@lothringen>
Date:   Fri, 11 Dec 2020 22:28:47 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: tick/sched: Make jiffies update quick check more robust

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:55:19AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The quick check in tick_do_update_jiffies64() whether jiffies need to be
> updated is not really correct under all circumstances and on all
> architectures, especially not on 32bit systems.
> 
> The quick check does:
> 
>     if (now < READ_ONCE(tick_next_period))
>     	return;
> 
> and the counterpart in the update is:
> 
>     WRITE_ONCE(tick_next_period, next_update_time);
> 
> This has two problems:
> 
>   1) On weakly ordered architectures there is no guarantee that the stores
>      before the WRITE_ONCE() are visible which means that other CPUs can
>      operate on a stale jiffies value.
> 
>   2) On 32bit the store of tick_next_period which is an u64 is split into
>      two 32bit stores. If the first 32bit store advances tick_next_period
>      far out and the second 32bit store is delayed (virt, NMI ...) then
>      jiffies will become stale until the second 32bit store happens.
> 
> Address this by seperating the handling for 32bit and 64bit.
> 
> On 64bit problem #1 is addressed by replacing READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE()
> with smp_load_acquire() / smp_store_release().
> 
> On 32bit problem #2 is addressed by protecting the quick check with the
> jiffies sequence counter. The load and stores can be plain because the
> sequence count mechanics provides the required barriers already.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

Looks very good! Thanks!

Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>