linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 11/13] x86/uintr: Introduce uintr

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: <87r1dedykm.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 13:04:25 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc:     Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Gayatri Kammela <gayatri.kammela@...el.com>,
        Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Randy E Witt <randy.e.witt@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.thomas@...el.com>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/13] x86/uintr: Introduce uintr_wait() syscall

On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 13:01, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> Add a new system call to allow applications to block in the kernel and
> wait for user interrupts.
>
> <The current implementation doesn't support waking up from other
> blocking system calls like sleep(), read(), epoll(), etc.
>
> uintr_wait() is a placeholder syscall while we decide on that
> behaviour.>
>
> When the application makes this syscall the notification vector is
> switched to a new kernel vector. Any new SENDUIPI will invoke the kernel
> interrupt which is then used to wake up the process.
>
> Currently, the task wait list is global one. To make the implementation
> scalable there is a need to move to a distributed per-cpu wait list.

How are per cpu wait lists going to solve the problem?

> +
> +/*
> + * Handler for UINTR_KERNEL_VECTOR.
> + */
> +DEFINE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(sysvec_uintr_kernel_notification)
> +{
> +	/* TODO: Add entry-exit tracepoints */
> +	ack_APIC_irq();
> +	inc_irq_stat(uintr_kernel_notifications);
> +
> +	uintr_wake_up_process();

So this interrupt happens for any of those notifications. How are they
differentiated? 
>  
> +int uintr_receiver_wait(void)
> +{
> +	struct uintr_upid_ctx *upid_ctx;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	if (!is_uintr_receiver(current))
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	upid_ctx = current->thread.ui_recv->upid_ctx;
> +	upid_ctx->upid->nc.nv = UINTR_KERNEL_VECTOR;
> +	upid_ctx->waiting = true;
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&uintr_wait_lock, flags);
> +	list_add(&upid_ctx->node, &uintr_wait_list);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&uintr_wait_lock, flags);
> +
> +	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);

Because we have not enough properly implemented wait primitives you need
to open code one which is blantantly wrong vs. a concurrent wake up?

> +	schedule();

How is that correct vs. a spurious wakeup? What takes care that the
entry is removed from the list?

Again. We have proper wait primitives.

> +	return -EINTR;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Runs in interrupt context.
> + * Scan through all UPIDs to check if any interrupt is on going.
> + */
> +void uintr_wake_up_process(void)
> +{
> +	struct uintr_upid_ctx *upid_ctx, *tmp;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&uintr_wait_lock, flags);
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(upid_ctx, tmp, &uintr_wait_list, node) {
> +		if (test_bit(UPID_ON, (unsigned long*)&upid_ctx->upid->nc.status)) {
> +			set_bit(UPID_SN, (unsigned long *)&upid_ctx->upid->nc.status);
> +			upid_ctx->upid->nc.nv = UINTR_NOTIFICATION_VECTOR;
> +			upid_ctx->waiting = false;
> +			wake_up_process(upid_ctx->task);
> +			list_del(&upid_ctx->node);

So any of these notification interrupts does a global mass wake up? How
does that make sense?

> +		}
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&uintr_wait_lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +/* Called when task is unregistering/exiting */
> +static void uintr_remove_task_wait(struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +	struct uintr_upid_ctx *upid_ctx, *tmp;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&uintr_wait_lock, flags);
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(upid_ctx, tmp, &uintr_wait_list, node) {
> +		if (upid_ctx->task == task) {
> +			pr_debug("wait: Removing task %d from wait\n",
> +				 upid_ctx->task->pid);
> +			upid_ctx->upid->nc.nv = UINTR_NOTIFICATION_VECTOR;
> +			upid_ctx->waiting = false;
> +			list_del(&upid_ctx->node);
> +		}

What? You have to do a global list walk to find the entry which you
added yourself?

Thanks,

        tglx