linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210204181546.GA30113@fuller.cnet>
Date:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 15:15:46 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        frederic@...nel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, abelits@...vell.com,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jinyuqi@...wei.com,
        zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping
 CPUs

On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:01:37PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28 2021 at 13:59, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> The whole pile wants to be reverted. It's simply broken in several ways.
> >
> > I was asking for your comments on interaction with CPU hotplug :-)
> 
> Which I answered in an seperate mail :)
> 
> > So housekeeping_cpumask has multiple meanings. In this case:
> 
> ...
> 
> > So as long as the meaning of the flags are respected, seems
> > alright.
> 
> Yes. Stuff like the managed interrupts preference for housekeeping CPUs
> when a affinity mask spawns housekeeping and isolated is perfectly
> fine. It's well thought out and has no limitations.
> 
> > Nitesh, is there anything preventing this from being fixed
> > in userspace ? (as Thomas suggested previously).
> 
> Everything with is not managed can be steered by user space.

Yes, but it seems to be racy (that is, there is a window where the 
interrupt can be delivered to an isolated CPU).

ethtool ->
xgbe_set_channels ->
xgbe_full_restart_dev ->
xgbe_alloc_memory ->
xgbe_alloc_channels ->
cpumask_local_spread

Also ifconfig eth0 down / ifconfig eth0 up leads
to cpumask_spread_local.

How about adding a new flag for isolcpus instead?