linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/resctrl: Fix a few issues in moving a task to a resource group

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: <2ff6b87f-3b1f-7b5e-2b4c-050192a12d4f@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Dec 2020 10:26:42 -0800
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, fenghua.yu@...el.com, bp@...en8.de,
        tony.luck@...el.com, kuo-lang.tseng@...el.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        mingo@...hat.com, babu.moger@....com, james.morse@....com,
        hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86/resctrl: Fix a few issues in moving a task to a
 resource group

Hi Valentin,

On 12/16/2020 9:41 AM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 
> On 14/12/20 18:38, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> Thinking a bit more (too much?) about it, we could limit ourselves to
>>> wrapping only reads not protected by the rdtgroup_mutex: the only two
>>> task_struct {closid, rmid} writers are
>>> - rdtgroup_move_task()
>>> - rdt_move_group_tasks()
>>> and they are both invoked while holding said mutex. Thus, a reader holding
>>> the mutex cannot race with a write, so load tearing ought to be safe.
>>
>> The reads that are not protected by the rdtgroup_mutex can be found in
>> __resctrl_sched_in(). It thus sounds to me like your proposed changes to
>> this function found in your patch [1] is what is needed?
> 
> Right.
> 
>> It is not clear
>> to me how the pairing would work in this case though. If I understand
>> correctly the goal is for the  write to the closid/rmid in the functions
>> you mention above to be paired with the reads in resctrl_sched_in() and
>> it is not clear how adding a single READ_ONCE would accomplish this
>> pairing by itself.
>>
> 
> So all the writes would need WRITE_ONCE(), but not all reads would require
> a READ_ONCE() (those that can't race with writes shouldn't need them).

Got it. I misunderstood your previous response, mistakenly thinking that 
it stated that there would be only READ_ONCE() reads without being 
paired with WRITE_ONCE() writes. Thanks for clearing that up.

> I'll go and update that patch so that you can bundle it with v2 of this
> series.

Thank you so much.

>> It is also not entirely clear to me what the problematic scenario could
>> be. If I understand correctly, the risk is (as you explained in your
>> commit message), that a CPU could have its {closid, rmid} fields read
>> locally (resctrl_sched_in()) while they are concurrently being written
>> to from another CPU (in rdtgroup_move_task() and rdt_move_group_tasks()
>> as you state above). If this happens then a task being moved may be
>> scheduled in with its old closid/rmid.
> 
> Worse, it may be scheduled with a mangled closid/rmid if the read in
> resctrl_sched_in() is torn (i.e. compiled as a sequence of multiple
> smaller-sized loads). This one of the things READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE()
> try to address.

I see. This area is unfamiliar to me, thank you very much for catching 
this and helping to get it right.

> 
>> The update of closid/rmid in
>> rdtgroup_move_task()/rdt_move_group_tasks() is followed by
>> smp_call_function_xx() where the registers are updated with preemption
>> disabled and thus protected against __switch_to. If a task was thus
>> incorrectly scheduled in with old closid/rmid, would it not be corrected
>> at this point?
>>
> 
> Excluding load/store tearing, then yes, the above works fine.
> 

Thank you for this sanity check.

Reinette