linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] smp: Run functions concurrently in smp_call_function_many

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]

Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:49:28 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] smp: Run functions concurrently in
 smp_call_function_many_cond()

> On Feb 16, 2021, at 4:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:16:46PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> @@ -894,17 +911,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(on_each_cpu_mask);
>> void on_each_cpu_cond_mask(smp_cond_func_t cond_func, smp_call_func_t func,
>> 			   void *info, bool wait, const struct cpumask *mask)
>> {
>> -	int cpu = get_cpu();
>> +	unsigned int scf_flags = SCF_RUN_LOCAL;
>> 
>> -	smp_call_function_many_cond(mask, func, info, wait, cond_func);
>> -	if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mask) && cond_func(cpu, info)) {
>> -		unsigned long flags;
>> +	if (wait)
>> +		scf_flags |= SCF_WAIT;
>> 
>> -		local_irq_save(flags);
>> -		func(info);
>> -		local_irq_restore(flags);
>> -	}
>> -	put_cpu();
>> +	smp_call_function_many_cond(mask, func, info, scf_flags, cond_func);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(on_each_cpu_cond_mask);
> 
> You lost the preempt_disable() there, I've added it back:
> 
> ---
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -920,7 +920,9 @@ void on_each_cpu_cond_mask(smp_cond_func
> 	if (wait)
> 		scf_flags |= SCF_WAIT;
> 
> +	preempt_disable();
> 	smp_call_function_many_cond(mask, func, info, scf_flags, cond_func);
> +	preempt_enable();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(on_each_cpu_cond_mask);

Indeed. I will add lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled() to
smp_call_function_many_cond() to prevent this mistake from reoccurring.